DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 7/22/2024 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 2/3/2022.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1 is the only independent claim.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, (f) paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “that” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-10 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-10 all recite a route planning unit that plans an operation route of the mobile object. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “each configuration, function, processing unit, processing means, and the like described above may be achieved, for example, by hardware by designing a part or all thereof with an integrated circuit, and so on. Also, each configuration, function, and the like described above may be achieved by software by that a processor interprets and executes a program achieving respective functions. Information of a program, tape, file, and the like achieving each function can be placed in a recording device such as a memory, hard disk, and SSD (solid state drive) or a recording medium such as an IC card, SD card, and DVD” [Specification, ¶ 0117].
Claims 1-10 all recite an appropriable space designing unit that designs, as an appropriable space of the mobile object. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “each configuration, function, processing unit, processing means, and the like described above may be achieved, for example, by hardware by designing a part or all thereof with an integrated circuit, and so on. Also, each configuration, function, and the like described above may be achieved by software by that a processor interprets and executes a program achieving respective functions. Information of a program, tape, file, and the like achieving each function can be placed in a recording device such as a memory, hard disk, and SSD (solid state drive) or a recording medium such as an IC card, SD card, and DVD” [Specification, ¶ 0117].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 have typographical errors that need to be corrected.
Claims 2-6 states “and when it is determined that the both interfere with each other” and this appears to be a type and should read “they” since there are two areas being discussed. The Office will interpret this as such.
This Office suggests going through all claims and looking for similar errors as the above listed errors, as the above list was exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 10 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 states “when it is determined that the both interfere with each other, the fixed appropriable space designing unit modifies the fixed appropriable space of the another mobile object around the mobile object,” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear thus indefinite. Claim 3 first states that when both areas associated with the mobile object interfere with each other, but now it appears that these regions are from “another” vehicle and are interfering with each other, thus there is either missing steps, or typos as to what is going on? Is Claim 2 wrong, and the interference is between two vehicles, yet in Claim 1, this cannot happen, or is Claim 3 missing steps where another vehicles is now in the overlapping areas? If Claim 3 is further identifying another scenario, there appears to further be antecedent issues with “the another vehicle”. Further, what is actually being carried out, when this claim requires “modifies the fixed appropriable space of the another mobile object around the mobile object”? What object are we even talking about? As currently presented, Claim 3 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, therefore it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as another vehicle having a path that intersects with the mobile vehicle and controlling the another vehicles appropriable space, accordingly. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 4 states “when it is determined that the both interfere with each other and the fixed appropriable space cannot be modified” yet in Claim 2, in which Claim 4 depends, it states that the appropriable space has already been modified. This contradiction is indefinite for multiple reasons. First, there appears to be a missing step when it is determine if the modifying of the appropriable space is possible, thus the claim is indefinite. Also, what is being use for this unstated determing step? Further, Claim 4, without this step, appears to not further limit, but broaden the claim subject matter, which is not allowed, as in Claim 2, the appropriable space is positively modified, and yet in Claim 4, it is not, which is not allowed. As currently presented, Claim 4 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any type of alerting based on modifying or not modifying as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 10 states “the mobile…plans the operation route based on the moving appropriable space and the fixed appropriable space having been recognized” yet Claim 10, which Claim 1 depends states “the operation management system comprising a route planning unit that plans an operation route of the mobile object” thus it is unclear if Claim 10 is requiring a new step of path planning or further defining that the mobile object is doing this instead of the system, or is this a typo? Further, if the mobile object is now planning the routes, what route was determined by the system? As currently presented, Claim 10 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. The Office is going to interpret any mobile object that can determine its own operational route, as reading on this.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (system). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites: An operation management system for managing operation of a mobile object
the operation management system comprising: a route planning unit that plans an operation route of the mobile object expressed as a series of a position and a clock time at which the mobile object is scheduled to pass
an appropriable space designing unit that designs, as an appropriable space of the mobile object where entering of another mobile object is not permitted
a moving appropriable space including the mobile object and moving along with the mobile object and a fixed appropriable space including the moving appropriable space and being along the operation route
wherein the route planning unit re-plans the operation route during operation of the mobile object based on positional relation between the moving appropriable space and the fixed appropriable space.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “planning a route, designing a space, and replanning a route” steps encompass a user to make merely plan and replan routes based on data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a processor, circuit, or software to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processor or circuit”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processer or circuit” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the plan and replan routes based on data steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
Additionally, the “processor and circuit” is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a “processor or circuit”. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of planning and replanning a route is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only gathers data and makes plans a route where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil.
In addition to that, the examiner submits that designing a space around a vehicle and using a generic component such as a “processor or circuit” is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a “processor or circuit” to perform the process of planning, designing, and replanning. In particular, the planning and replanning steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of computing for use in the planning and replanning step), and amounts to mere calculations, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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) add nothing 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 “processor or circuit” or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent Claim 1 does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the “processor or circuit” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of planning and replanning routes based on data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
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 planning and replanning routes based on data errors are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the processor or circuit are all conventional/general components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claim 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the route plans and replans, whereas currently presented, these values are merely planned. Further, Claim 4 positively states an action, based on issues with the appropriable area not being modified, thus would also, if incorporated into Claim 2 and further into Claim 1, to help remove the current 101. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Cantrell et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0043350).
With respect to Claim 1: Cantrell discloses “An operation management system for managing operation of a mobile object” [Cantrell, Abstract, ¶ 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (methods and systems are provided that provide for creating and monitoring predefined mission routes along air rails and non-overlapping buffer zones surrounding unmanned vehicles during travel of the unmanned vehicles along the predefined mission routes)];
“the operation management system comprising: a route planning unit that plans an operation route of the mobile object expressed as a series of a position and a clock time at which the mobile object is scheduled to pass” [Cantrell, ¶ 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (methods and systems are provided that provide for creating and monitoring predefined mission routes along air rails and non-overlapping buffer zones surrounding unmanned vehicles during travel of the unmanned vehicles along the predefined mission routes. The buffer zone may be thought of as a projected movement variation area being associated by the system to the UAV and containing four dimensions, the three positional dimensions, X, Y, and Z, along with a temporal one, time. Generally, the buffer zone will change as ambient conditions, location, and orientation of an unmanned vehicle change during travel of the unmanned vehicle along its predefined mission route)];
“an appropriable space designing unit that designs, as an appropriable space of the mobile object where entering of another mobile object is not permitted” [Cantrell, ¶ 0038, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110)];
“a moving appropriable space including the mobile object and moving along with the mobile object” [Cantrell, ¶ 0038, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110) -Size/location of UAV];
“and a fixed appropriable space including the moving appropriable space and being along the operation route” [Cantrell, ¶ 0038, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110) -Buffer around UAV];
“wherein the route planning unit re-plans the operation route during operation of the mobile object based on positional relation between the moving appropriable space and the fixed appropriable space” [Cantrell, Abstract, ¶ 0017, 0042, 0070, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (he UAV 310 has deviated from the predefined mission route 120 such the projected buffer zone 125 originally calculated for the mission route of the UAV 110 is about to or already overlaps a buffer zone of another nearby UAV 110 flying along its mission route, the control circuit 306 of the deviating UAV 310 is programmed to evaluate the deviation of the buffer zone 125 of the UAV 310, and generate an altered mission route 170 and an associated recalculated buffer zone 175 for the deviating UAV 310 such that, while the deviating UAV 310 is rerouted and is flying along the altered mission route 170, the buffer zone 175 of the deviating UAV 310 no longer overlaps the buffer zone of the UAV with which the deviating UAV 310 was projected to collide, and does not overlap the buffer zone of any other UAVs that are flying in proximity to the altered mission route 170 of the deviating UAV 31)].
With respect to Claim 2: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 1, wherein the appropriable space designing unit includes a moving appropriable space designing unit, a fixed appropriable space designing unit, and a space interference determination unit” [Cantrell, Abstract, ¶ 0019, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (methods and systems are provided that provide for creating and monitoring predefined mission routes along air rails and non-overlapping buffer zones surrounding unmanned vehicles during travel of the unmanned vehicles along the predefined mission routes)];
“the moving appropriable space designing unit designing the moving appropriable space” [Cantrell, ¶ 0038, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110) -Size of UAV];
“the fixed appropriable space designing unit designing the fixed appropriable space” [Cantrell, ¶ 0038, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110) -Size/location of UAV];
“the space interference determination unit determining whether or not both of a boundary surface defining the moving appropriable space and a boundary surface defining the fixed appropriable space interfere with each other” [Cantrell, ¶ 0012, 0050, 0076 with Figure 4 (the route instructions, after being determined by the computing device 150, can be recalculated by the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 (or the control circuit 306 of the UAV 110) in real-time, for example, if an obstacle, no-fly zone, mechanical or electrical malfunction, or another condition altering movement of the UAV 110 enough to cause the UAV 110 to deviate from its predefined mission route 120, is detected along the originally calculated mission route 120 of the UAV 110)];
“and when it is determined that they both interfere with each other, the fixed appropriable space designing unit modifies the fixed appropriable space” [Cantrell, ¶ 0012, 0050, 0070-0079 with Figure 4 (that the UAV 310 has deviated from the predefined mission route 120 such the projected buffer zone 125 originally calculated for the mission route of the UAV 110 is about to or already overlaps a buffer zone of another nearby UAV 110 flying along its mission route, the control circuit 306 of the deviating UAV 310 is programmed to evaluate the deviation of the buffer zone 125 of the UAV 310, and generate an altered mission route 170 and an associated recalculated buffer zone 175)];
“and the route planning unit re-plans the operation route according to the fixed appropriable space having been modified” [Cantrell, ¶ 0017, 0042, 0070, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (the UAV 310 has deviated from the predefined mission route 120 such the projected buffer zone 125 originally calculated for the mission route of the UAV 110 is about to or already overlaps a buffer zone of another nearby UAV 110 flying along its mission route, the control circuit 306 of the deviating UAV 310 is programmed to evaluate the deviation of the buffer zone 125 of the UAV 310, and generate an altered mission route 170 and an associated recalculated buffer zone 175 for the deviating UAV 310 such that, while the deviating UAV 310 is rerouted and is flying along the altered mission route 170, the buffer zone 175 of the deviating UAV 310 no longer overlaps the buffer zone of the UAV with which the deviating UAV 310 was projected to collide, and does not overlap the buffer zone of any other UAVs that are flying in proximity to the altered mission route 170 of the deviating UAV 31)].
With respect to Claim 3: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 2, wherein, when it is determined that the both interfere with each other, the fixed appropriable space designing unit modifies the fixed appropriable space of the another mobile object around the mobile object” [Cantrell, ¶ 0072-0079 with Figure 4 (after the control circuit 306 of the UAV 310 and/or the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 determines, based on received sensor input from the UAV 310, that the UAV 310 has deviated from the predefined mission route 120 such the projected buffer zone 125 originally calculated for the mission route of the UAV 110 is about to or already overlaps a buffer zone of another nearby UAV 110 flying along its mission route, the control circuit 306 of the deviating UAV 310 is programmed to alter the mission route 120 of the non-deviating UAV 310 instead of altering the mission route 120 of the deviating UAV 310 as mentioned above)];
“and the route planning unit re-plans the operation route of the another mobile object according to the fixed appropriable space of the another mobile object having been modified” [Cantrell, ¶ 0072-0079 with Figure 4 (after the control circuit 306 of the UAV 310 and/or the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 determines, based on received sensor input from the UAV 310, that the UAV 310 has deviated from the predefined mission route 120 such the projected buffer zone 125 originally calculated for the mission route of the UAV 110 is about to or already overlaps a buffer zone of another nearby UAV 110 flying along its mission route, the control circuit 306 of the deviating UAV 310 is programmed to alter the mission route 120 of the non-deviating UAV 310 instead of altering the mission route 120 of the deviating UAV 310 as mentioned above)].
With respect to Claim 5: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 2, wherein, positional information of the mobile object is acquired at a predetermined frequency during a period until the mobile object body reaches a finish point from a start point of the operation route, and, at every acquisition or the positional information, it is determined whether or not the operation route is required to be re-planned” [Cantrell, ¶ 0040, 0057-0058, 0072-0079 with Figure 4 (to perform buffer zone assessment calculations in a continuous loop)].
With respect to Claim 6: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 2, wherein, the fixed appropriable space designing unit designs the fixed appropriable space so that the both do not interfere with each other even when the mobile object goes around an obstruction by determination of the mobile object itself” [Cantrell, ¶ 0040, 0061, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110) and (be appreciated that the route instructions, after being determined by the computing device 150, can be recalculated by the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 (or the control circuit 306 of the UAV 110) in real-time, for example, if an obstacle, no-fly zone, mechanical or electrical malfunction, or another condition altering movement of the UAV 110 enough to cause the UAV 110 to deviate from its predefined mission route 120, is detected along the originally calculated mission route 120 of the UAV 110)].
With respect to Claim 7: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 1,wherein, each of the mobile object and the another mobile object is a flying object, and the appropriable space designing unit designs at least one of the fixed appropriable space and the moving appropriable space based on wind state information expressing a wind state predicted at each spot within a management area of the operation management system” [Cantrell, ¶ 0038, 0042, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (In some embodiments, the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 is programmed to determine the buffer zone 125 around a UAV 110 to be flying along a predetermined mission route 120. In certain implementations, the buffer zone 125 is a three dimensional buffer zone (e.g., extending in X, Y, and Z dimensions) that is based at least on one or more of the following variables: communications lag time from UAV 110 to the computing device 150; the handling characteristics of the UAV 110 (e.g., payload weight, payload size, etc.); the speed of the UAV 110; UAV congestion (i.e., traffic) in a given segment of the mission route 120, and weather (e.g., wind speed, wind gust speed, precipitation, air density, visibility, smoke, etc.). In some aspects, an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110)].
With respect to Claim 8: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 1, wherein the appropriable space designing unit designs at least one of the fixed appropriable space and the moving appropriable space based on at least one of a position measurement error of the mobile object and quality of communication with the mobile object” [Cantrell, ¶ 0038-0039, 0042, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (In some embodiments, the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 is programmed to determine the buffer zone 125 around a UAV 110 to be flying along a predetermined mission route 120. In certain implementations, the buffer zone 125 is a three dimensional buffer zone (e.g., extending in X, Y, and Z dimensions) that is based at least on one or more of the following variables: communications lag time from UAV 110 to the computing device 150; the handling characteristics of the UAV 110 (e.g., payload weight, payload size, etc.); the speed of the UAV 110; UAV congestion (i.e., traffic) in a given segment of the mission route 120, and weather (e.g., wind speed, wind gust speed, precipitation, air density, visibility, smoke, etc.). In some aspects, an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110)].
With respect to Claim 9: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 1, wherein, each of the mobile object and the another mobile object is a flying object, and the appropriable space designing unit designs an appropriable space not permitting entering of the flying object with respect to at least one of a meteorological area, becoming a hamper of flight of the flying object, a flying body and an aboveground structure, and an air exclusion area of the flying object” [Cantrell, ¶ 0040, 0061, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (an exemplary buffer zone 125 calculated by the control circuit 210 for a UAV 110 depends on the overall size of the UAV 110, and for a UAV 110 shaped as a 1 ft by 1 ft cube, the calculated buffer zone 125 may be, for example, from about 1 feet to about 10 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, etc.) in each direction surrounding the mission route 120 of the UAV 110, thus forming a 360° imaginary cylinder surrounding the UAV 110 at any point along the mission route 120 assigned to the UAV 110) and (be appreciated that the route instructions, after being determined by the computing device 150, can be recalculated by the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 (or the control circuit 306 of the UAV 110) in real-time, for example, if an obstacle, no-fly zone, mechanical or electrical malfunction, or another condition altering movement of the UAV 110 enough to cause the UAV 110 to deviate from its predefined mission route 120, is detected along the originally calculated mission route 120 of the UAV 110)].
With respect to Claim 10: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 1, wherein, information of the moving appropriable space and the fixed appropriable space is transmitted to the mobile object” [Cantrell, ¶ 0028, 0058 0071-0079 with Figure 4 (the control circuit 306 of the deviating UAV 310, the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 is programmed to evaluate the deviation of the buffer zone 125 of the UAV 310, and generate an altered mission route 170 and an associated recalculated buffer zone 175 for the deviating UAV 310 such that, while the deviating UAV 310 is rerouted and is flying along the altered mission route 170, the buffer zone 175 of the deviating UAV 310 no longer overlaps the buffer zone of the UAV)];
“and the mobile object recognizes the moving appropriable space and the fixed appropriable space based on the information having been transmitted” [Cantrell, ¶ 0028, 0058 0071-0079 with Figure 4 (the control circuit 306 of the deviating UAV 310, the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 is programmed to evaluate the deviation of the buffer zone 125 of the UAV 310, and generate an altered mission route 170 and an associated recalculated buffer zone 175 for the deviating UAV 310 such that, while the deviating UAV 310 is rerouted and is flying along the altered mission route 170, the buffer zone 175 of the deviating UAV 310 no longer overlaps the buffer zone of the UAV];
“and plans the operation route based on the moving appropriable space and the fixed appropriable space having been recognized” [Cantrell, ¶ 0028, 0058 0071-0079 with Figure 4 (the control circuit 306 of the deviating UAV 310, the control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 is programmed to evaluate the deviation of the buffer zone 125 of the UAV 310, and generate an altered mission route 170 and an associated recalculated buffer zone 175 for the deviating UAV 310 such that, while the deviating UAV 310 is rerouted and is flying along the altered mission route 170, the buffer zone 175 of the deviating UAV 310 no longer overlaps the buffer zone of the UAV)].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0043350) in view of Ryne et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0290650).
With respect to Claim 4: While Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 2, wherein, when it is determined that the both interfere with each other… an alarm is transmitted to the mobile object so as to be operated along the operation route” [Cantrell, ¶ 0028, 0046, 0072-0079 with Figure 4 (in order to alert the computing device 150 that one or more of the UAVs 110 is about to, or has just deviated, from the mission route 120)];
Cantrell does not specially state what to do when the route cannot be changed.
Ryne, which is in the same field of invention of vehicle control along a path teaches “wherein, when the fixed appropriable space cannot be modified, an alarm is transmitted to the mobile object” [Ryne, ¶ 0061 (This action may not lead to a path change of the host vehicle 10, but alerts the driver of the host vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ryne into the invention of Cantrell to not only changing the route and buffer of the route as a vehicle passes, but also without changing the route, alerting a user as Cantrell discloses but to also alert the user when a route cannot be changed as taught by Ryne with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ryne into Cantrell to create a more robust system that can help keep the user or vehicle more informed based on the notification [Ryne, ¶ 0061] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control on paths and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Examiners Note - Intended Use
Claim 4 uses “intended use” claim language and it is the Office’s stance that this language is not clear, as currently presented, and does not carry much patentable weight. Using the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the terms “so as” that is recited in the above mentioned claims conveys the “intended use” of certain elements of each claim and for examining purposes, only the elements with patentable weight and not the uses need to be addressed.
For example, Claim 4 states “so as to be operated along the operation route” and this intended use language would not carry patentable weight since it is the intended use of the invention. The Office suggests rewriting these claims to remove the “intended use" phrases which would make the claims more clear and better mark the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights