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.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 is the only independent claim.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 7/2/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 7/2/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 2 and 4 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the Title Objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Title Objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim objection of Claims 2-6, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claims 2-6 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
However, due to the Alternative Language in Claim 1, where the first interference is either between the first object and itself, or the first object and a second object, when the interference with the second object is selected, zero control or action is required. Thus the claim stops and ends with a determination step. The Office suggests amending to clearly recite what occurs when the alternative path of interference with a second object occurs. If a control step is added to this path, the 101 would be removed.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
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 the claims no longer contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 has typographical errors that need to be corrected.
Claim 3 states “modified fixed appropriable space of the second mobile” and it appears there is a missing term “object” after the word “mobile”.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 states “modifying the fixed appropriable space of the second mobile object around the first mobile object” and this appears to be new matter. When the Office looks into the specification, support for the second appropriable space being “around” the first mobile object is not supported, thus appears to be new matter. Therefore the claims are rejected as failing their written description requirement to be supported in the specification. 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 1, 3, and 5-10 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 1 states “determining a moving appropriable space including that includes the first mobile object and moving that moves along with the first mobile object” and then states “determining a fixed appropriable space including for the first mobile object that encompasses the moving appropriable space” thus the system determines one space, encompassed by the other. Yet later the Claims require “a first interference by which a boundary of the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object interferes with a boundary of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object” and this is unclear since the fixed space “encompasses” the moving state of the first object, thus by definition, it surrounds it. Therefore the metes and bounds are unclear as to when the “encompassing” is correct and not correct? Is there a missing step or bad math where when the system determines these spaces, that they might cross? How would the system only work sometimes? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this any possible offset of path and moveable space. The Office will interpret any type of action based on the second object. The Office further suggests amending the claims to capture what occurs for the second option. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 1 states “determining, during operation of the first mobile object and based on positional information acquired at a predetermined frequency, a first interference by which a boundary of the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object interferes with a boundary of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object, or interferes with an appropriable space of a second mobile object” thus this alternative language introduces two paths, either interfering with itself, or interfering with a second mobile object. However, the following limitations do not further limit what happens when the second alternative is chosen, the second object, thus the metes and bounds are unclear, thus indefinite. When option one, itself, is selected, further replanning and control is directed, yet when option 2, a second object is detected, nothing is done, rather the claim just stops. Therefore as currently presented, what happens when the first interference occurs with a second object is unclear thus indefinite. The Office will interpret any action in response to this determination. The Office further suggests amending the claims to capture what occurs for the second option. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 1 states “based on subsequently determining a second interference between the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object and at least one of the modified fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object, or the appropriable space of the second mobile object” which introduces a second crossing of the boundaries and yet Claim 1 further states “and further based at least on not being able to modify the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object while satisfying a predetermined safety constraint” and there appears to be a missing step here as to when the allowability to modify the fixed space was determined. When is this step determined in regards to the second object? This step does make sense for the first object crossing itself, but is unclear thus indefinite what is being claimed for the second object? How can Therefore as currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office will interpret any type of action based on the second object. The Office further suggests amending the claims to capture what occurs for the second option. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 3 states “based on subsequently determining a third interference between the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object and the appropriable space of the second mobile object, modifying the fixed appropriable space of the second mobile object around the first mobile object” and these limitations are unclear thus indefinite. First, what is subsequently mean? Does this mean we need a first and second interference as stated in Claim 1 to both occur, before we get to this limitation, so two interferences before, or does this mean any interference? If this is the former, and each interference could be with a first object and itself, or a second object, what is actually being measured? Is it any interference? Further, and more importantly, what “appropriable space” of the second vehicle is being interference with here? Is this the fixed or moving? There is a huge missing limitation as to what space for the second object is being interfered with, and without specification support, is unclear, with unknown metes and bounds, thus is indefinite. Finally, how can the second objects appropriable space be around the first mobile object? This appears to be a major interference and would trigger actions, which are not claimed, as Claim 1 fails to state what happens when a first space interferes with a second space. As currently presented, Claim 3 fails, for multiple reasons, to clearly state the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus the claim is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any interference between the first and second object as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 3 states “modifying the fixed appropriable space of the second mobile object around the first mobile object” and “re-planning an operation route of the second mobile object according to the modified fixed appropriable space of the second mobile object having been modified” and finally “ providing the re-planned operation route of the second mobile object to the second mobile object” yet the preamble of Claim 1 states this is a system for management operation of a first mobile object, yet Claim 3 is disclosing control of the second object. Is this a typo? Or are there missing steps where a processor and memory are missing interfaces to talk to the second object, since the first object has these interfaces, there is zero interfaces for the second object. As currently presented, Claim 3 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret that both objects have interfaces and the processor and memory are form a management system that overseas the vehicles. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 6 states “determining the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object so that the both the boundary of the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object does not interfere with the boundary of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object” yet this appears to directly contradict what is required in Claim 1. Claim 1 clearly states a first and second interference with the first object and itself, yet here it states, the system is determined to not interference with itself, thus what is actually being claimed and what the metes and bounds to this limitation are unclear, thus indefinite. First, as stated above about Claim 1, if the system determines the fixed and moving space for the first object, how would they ever cross? If they do, it would appear that the determining has issues. Now in Claim 6, which states the system determines that they “does not interfere”, thus the only interfere ever, will be the undefined interference with a second objects space. Is this correct? As currently presented, Claim 6 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, as Claim 1 states there is interference yet Claim 6 states there is not, thus what is actually being claimed or required. The Office is going to interpret the second object path, since this appears to be the only option that makes sense. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 10 states “a third mobile object is managed by the operation management system” which makes the preamble of Claim 1 unclear, and further appears to be missing the interface to actually control the third mobile object as the interface in Claim 1 is only for the first mobile object. Therefore the claims appear to be missing a few items/steps, thus the claims are unclear and indefinite. The Office will interpret this as having an interface to communicate with several objects and further the preamble is to control objects in an area, instead of just the first object. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 first mobile object, the operation management system comprising: one or more processors;
a non-transitory memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors;
a communication interface configured to communicate with the first mobile object;
a control interface configured to output a control command used for controlling motion of the first mobile object;
the one or more processors configured by the executable instructions to perform operations that include:
generating an operation route of the first mobile object as time-stamped route data including a series of positions and corresponding clock times;
determining a moving appropriable space that includes the first mobile object and moving that moves along with the first mobile object;
determining a fixed appropriable space for the first mobile object that encompasses the moving appropriable space and that extends along the operation route;
determining, during operation of the first mobile object and based on positional information acquired at a predetermined frequency, a first interference by which a boundary of the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object interferes with a boundary of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object, or interferes with an appropriable space of a second mobile object;
based on determining the first interference is between the boundary of the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object and the boundary of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object, modifying the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object and re-planning the operation route according to the modified fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object;
outputting, via at least one of the control interface or the communication interface, a control command for controlling the first mobile object to operate along the re-planned operation route;
and based on subsequently determining a second interference between the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object and at least one of the modified fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object, or the appropriable space of the second mobile object,
and further based at least on not being able to modify the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object while satisfying a predetermined safety constraint,
transmitting an alarm signal to at least the first mobile object.
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 determing an interference” 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”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processer” 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” 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”. 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” is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a “processor” to perform the process of planning, designing, and determining. In particular, the planning and determining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of computing for use in the planning and determining 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 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” 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 determining 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 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 interference determining, whereas currently presented, these values are merely planned. 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 first mobile object, the operation management system comprising: one or more processors” [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)];
a non-transitory memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors [Cantrell, ¶ 0024, 0073-0079 with Figure 1 (The control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 can be configured (for example, by using corresponding programming stored in the memory 220 as will be well understood by those skilled in the art) to carry out one or more of the steps, actions, and/or functions described herein. In some embodiments, the memory 220 may be integral to the processor-based control circuit 210 or can be physically discrete (in whole or in part) from the control circuit 210 and is configured non-transitorily store the computer instructions that, when executed by the control circuit 210, cause the control circuit 210 to behave as described herein)];
“a communication interface configured to communicate with the first mobile object” [Cantrell, ¶ 0020, 0073-0079 with Figure 1 (In the system 100 of FIG. 1, the computing device 150 is in two-way communication with the UAV 110 via the network 115. For example, the computing device 150 can be configured to transmit at least one signal to the UAV 110 to cause the UAV 110 to fly along a mission route 120 determined by the computing device 150 and/or to deviate from a predetermined mission route 120 while transporting products 190 from the UAV deployment station 185 to the intended delivery destination 180 (e.g., to drop off a product 190 or to pick up a product 190), or while returning from the delivery destination 180 to the UAV deployment station 185 (e.g., after dropping off a product 190 or after picking up a product 190)];
“a control interface configured to output a control command used for controlling motion of the first mobile object” [Cantrell, ¶ 0020, 0073-0079 with Figure 1 (In the system 100 of FIG. 1, the computing device 150 is in two-way communication with the UAV 110 via the network 115. For example, the computing device 150 can be configured to transmit at least one signal to the UAV 110 to cause the UAV 110 to fly along a mission route 120 determined by the computing device 150 and/or to deviate from a predetermined mission route 120 while transporting products 190 from the UAV deployment station 185 to the intended delivery destination 180 (e.g., to drop off a product 190 or to pick up a product 190), or while returning from the delivery destination 180 to the UAV deployment station 185 (e.g., after dropping off a product 190 or after picking up a product 190)];
“the one or more processors configured by the executable instructions to perform operations that include” [Cantrell, ¶ 0024, 0073-0079 with Figure 1 (The control circuit 210 of the computing device 150 can be configured (for example, by using corresponding programming stored in the memory 220 as will be well understood by those skilled in the art) to carry out one or more of the steps, actions, and/or functions described herein. In some embodiments, the memory 220 may be integral to the processor-based control circuit 210 or can be physically discrete (in whole or in part) from the control circuit 210 and is configured non-transitorily store the computer instructions that, when executed by the control circuit 210, cause the control circuit 210 to behave as described herein)];
“generating an operation route of the first mobile object as time-stamped route data including a series of positions and corresponding clock times” [Cantrell, ¶ 0011, 0038, 0042, 0073-0079 with Figure 1 (generally speaking, pursuant to various embodiments, systems, apparatuses, and methods are provided for creating and monitoring predefined mission routes along air rails and non-overlapping buffer zones for unmanned vehicles during travel of the unmanned vehicles along the predefined mission routes. The air rails may be thought of as virtual highways in the sky, and 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)];
“determining a moving appropriable space that includes the first mobile object and moving that moves along with the first 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 of the UAV (See Figure 1 with deviation away from buffer and rail)];
“determining a fixed appropriable space for the first mobile object that encompasses the moving appropriable space and that extends along the operation route” [Cantrell, ¶ 0017, 0030, 0038, 0073-0079 with Figure 4 (The air rails may be thought of as virtual highways in the sky, and 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.) -Virtual Highway or Rails (See Figure 1 with deviation away from buffer and rail)];
“determining, during operation of the first mobile object and based on positional information acquired at a predetermined frequency, a first interference by which a boundary of the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object interferes with a boundary of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object, or interferes with an appropriable space of a second mobile object” [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)];
“based on determining the first interference is between the boundary of the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object and the boundary of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object, modifying the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object and re-planning the operation route according to the modified fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object” [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)];
“outputting, via at least one of the control interface or the communication interface, a control command for controlling the first mobile object to operate along the re-planned operation route” [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)];
“and based on subsequently determining a second interference between the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object and at least one of the modified fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object, or the appropriable space of the second mobile object” [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)],
“and further based at least on not being able to modify the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object while satisfying a predetermined safety constraint” [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)],
“transmitting an alarm signal to at least the first mobile object” [Cantrell, Abstract, ¶ 0028, 0042, 0046, 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) and (In one aspect, the scout vehicles 155 are configured to transmit one or more signals to the computing device 150 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 predefined for the UAV(s) 110 by the computing device 150)].
Claim Construction
Claim language reciting an alternative format presents the Office with a choice of examining either alternative presented, but not both. Thus all claims that depend on the alternative not examined claim limitations are withdrawn from consideration. In the Claim above, the first interference is between the first object and itself, or with a second object. The Office is following the second path with the second object. Appropriate action is required.
With respect to Claim 3: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 1, the operations further comprising based on subsequently determining a third interference between the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object and the appropriable space of the second 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)];
“modifying the fixed appropriable space of the second mobile object around the first 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)];
“re-planning an operation route of the second mobile object according to the modified fixed appropriable space of the second mobile” [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)];
“providing the re-planned operation route of the second mobile object to the second 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)].
With respect to Claim 5: Cantrell discloses “The operation management system according to claim 1, wherein, the positional information of the mobile object is acquired at the 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, the operations include determining whether or not the operation route of the first mobile object 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 1, the operations further comprising, determining the fixed appropriable space of the first object so that the boundary of the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object does not interference with the boundary of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object even when the first 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 first mobile object and the second mobile object is a flying object, and at least one of the fixed appropriable space of each of the first and second mobile objects is determined 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 at least one of the fixed appropriable space of the first mobile object or the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object is determined based on at least part on at least one of a position measurement error of the first mobile object or a 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 first mobile object and the second mobile object is a flying object, and at least one of the fixed appropriable space or the moving appropriable space of the first mobile object is determined to not permit the flying object to intersect with at least one of a meteorological area that would be a hamper of flight of the flying object, an aboveground structure, or an air exclusion area that prohibits the flying objects” [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 a third mobile object is managed by the operation management system, information of a moving appropriable space and the fixed appropriable space for the third mobile object is transmitted to the third mobile object 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 determines an operation route for the third mobile object 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)].
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
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
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