DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 1A, it is unclear what the numeral 4 is supposed to be pointing to. The specification recites “The commands are then broadcast 4, 9…” ([0036]) which seemingly indicates that 4 could be commands or the broadcast itself, but it is unclear where this is represented in the diagram and how such an indication would be different from wireless commands 3.
In Fig. 3B it is unclear what 13 is supposed to designate. Examiner assumes it is an open and previously occupied space, however the support for 13 describes “When the move instruction is sent to these units, the units are primed to instruct the neighbors along the path of their destination to replace them at their current location when they move 13” [0042]. Examiner best understands 13 as a method step, so it is unclear why the specific dotted perimeter is relevant to this explanation in the structural drawing.
In Fig. 4A and Fig. 4E it is further unclear what 11 and 12 are supposed to point to, and how 11 is different from the “failed unit” label. Applicant’s specification recites “Also, in a similar consideration, if a child unit is no longer responsive to movement or other appropriate commands, 11 the neighboring child units can a) move around the unresponsive unit to continue with their path as programmed 12 or b) push the unresponsive unit to a “dead zone” to unblock the path of the other units” [0041]. Each of 11 and 12 are once again best understood as method steps per the description, and as such it is unclear why each of the designated indications on the structural drawing are relevant.
For the sake of brevity, similar issues are pertinent to Fig. 5 designations 14 and 15 as were described for Fig. 3B, 4A, and 4E. Additionally, Figs. 7A-D require the same attention for designations 19, 20, and 21.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding claim 3, the disclosure includes no such language pertaining to “removal of predictable or irrelevant information based on its destination” in lines 2-3. Paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s disclosure refers to compressing commands such that those commands can be quickly read and processed by swarm units. However, there is no such corresponding information regarding the removal of predictable and irrelevant information based on a destination.
Regarding claim 6, the disclosure includes no such language to “…the role of the transporter is configured for moving resources in the swarm shape formation, wherein the resources comprise fuel and payload,
…the role of the carrier is configured to pull a failed swarm unit during the swarm shape formation towards a storage, disposal container, or a swarm dead-zone location;
…the role of the charger is configured to collect energy more effectively for usage or sharing with other swarm units,
…the role of the destroyer is configured to safely eliminate or neutralize compromised or failed swarm units during swarm shape formation” in lines 3-11. Applicant makes no reference to any one of a role of transporter, charger, or destroyer, only to a “carrier mode”. The description of the carrier mode does not describe a pulling action but rather a pushing action (see Paragraph [0041]). Additionally, there is no such mention of resources such as fuel or payload, no such mention of a storage or disposal container, no such mention of energy collection or sharing of energy with other swarm units, and additionally no such mention of the elimination or neutralization compromised or failed swarm units.
Regarding claim 9, the disclosure includes no such language to “…the message is conjured to automatically decay…” in line 1. There is a similar description in [0039], but given that there is a slight difference between a message automatically decaying and a message being assigned a lifetime, it is recommended that such automatic decay be included in the specification, or the language of [0039] be amended into the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure does not include language of “…enabling non-surface swarm units inferring their movement or other instructions from primed swarm units…” in lines 2-3. Support for such primed swarm units instructing neighboring units in [0042]. However, no such support for non-surface swarm units and any inference of instructions is disclosed. Applicant is recommended to include the language of the claim in the specification, or amend the claim to reflect the language of [0042] more closely.
Regarding claims 11, 16, and 17, the disclosure does not support the term “compromised” in the context of each claim. Paragraph [0035] briefly mentions third-party access or corruption of messages/instructions, but no such comprising of the units is discussed. Applicant is recommended to include the language of the claim in the specification, or amend the claim to reflect the language of [0035] more closely.
For the sake of brevity, Examiner will not go into detail about the following issues, but each should be addressed accordingly:
Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient support in the specification for a maintaining of position when power is lost or power-down activities.
Regarding claim 13, there is insufficient support in the specification for detecting corrupted messages, repairing or discarding corrupted messages, or intent/recovery results which determine the discard or repair of corrupted messages.
Regarding claim 17, there is insufficient support in the specification for reporting, avoidance, repair, or disposal.
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient support in the specification for a summary for expected unit routes.
Regarding claim 19, there is insufficient support for enabling recovery of lost or corrupted instructions.
Regarding claim 21, there is insufficient support for swarm medium manipulations.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “…compressing, the instruction set…” in line 2. Examiner recommends removing the comma in this limitation such that the claim simply reads “compressing the instruction set”. The instruction set is what is being compressed so no such comma separation of clauses is required in this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “…known by the plurality of mother units and/or one or more child units” in lines 3-4. One or more child units were previously introduced in claim 1 (see lines 7-8) and as such Examiner recommends reintroducing the one or more child units such that the limitation instead reads “…known by the plurality of mother units and/or the one or more child units”.
Claim 10 recites “…wherein the primed swarm units comprise shape’s surface swarm units” in lines 3-4. Since no such surface swarm units have been introduced, in order for the grammatical structure of the sentence to flow, it is recommended the limitation instead reads “…wherein the primed swarm units comprise a shape’s surface swarm units.” Such an amendment would additionally ensure that any such shape may have a corresponding surface swarm unit.
Claim 17 recites “…the neighboring swarm unit has failed or compromised…” in lines 3-4. The verb compromised in this instance is also introduced by “has” such that when considering only a compromised unit, the limitation grammatically would read as “…the neighboring swarm unit has compromised…”. Such structure is grammatically incorrect and as such, Examiner recommends writing “…the neighboring swarm unit has failed or been compromised…” to alleviate this grammatical issue in the claim.
Appropriate correction 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 1-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A method for 3D swarm shape formation, recovery, and movement…” in line 1. It is unclear whether this is meant to be swarm shape formation, swarm recovery, and swarm movement, or if the limitation is rather meant to be swarm shape formation, swarm shape recovery, and swarm shape movement. Examiner infers that the former regarding swarm shape formation, swarm recovery, and swarm movement is the intended meaning. Thus, the claim will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-21 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 1 further refers to units. It is unclear what these units are, as the specification refers merely to electronic units which are used in “holograms, night-time drone formations, 3D glasses custom hardware, virtual-reality equipment, and many others” ([0003]) and additionally “a large number of electronic units, such as drones and robots” ([0004]). The specification later refers to units as “particles” when discussing the functions which are tabulated on Pages 10-11. Due to the inability to determine an appropriate meets and bounds to the use of unit Examiner will determine such units as either drones or robots.
Claims 2-21 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “…compressing the instruction set by removal of predictable or irrelevant information based on its destination” in lines 2-3. First, regarding predictable or irrelevant information it is unclear what information would be considered predictable or irrelevant. No such description of predictable or irrelevant information is discussed in applicant’s disclosure, and Examiner cannot ascertain the meets and bounds of this limitation. It is therefore further unclear how such information can therefore be compressed. Thus, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, as no such adequate scope can be determined, Examiner best understands the act of compressing predictable and irrelevant as any sort of reduction of information passed through each hierarchy of leadership in the swarm unit based on the level of detail required to perform the desired action per the instruction set. That is, mother units receive one level of information and passes only information that is necessary for child units to carry out respective tasks, thus compressing predictable and irrelevant information based on the destination to either a child or mother unit.
Additionally, it is unclear whether its destination from line 3 of the claim refers to the destination of the information or the destination of the swarm unit which receives the instruction set based on the movement instructions. Examiner best interprets the claim to read, “compressing the instruction set by removal of predictable or irrelevant information based on a destination of the instruction set.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “The method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of roles further comprises transporter, carrier, charger, destroyer…” in lines 1-2. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the plurality of roles in this limitation. No such plurality of roles has been introduced in claim 4 or claim 1 and as such it is unclear which roles are being referred to. Claim 5 instead introduces a plurality of roles and as such claim 6 is best understood as being dependent on claim 5. Thus, Examiner will interpret the claim to read “The method of claim 5, wherein…” in an effort to alleviate this discrepancy.
Additionally, it is unclear if “transporter, carrier, charger, destroyer” is meant to be a combination of such roles, only one such role, or all such roles. Examiner best interprets the role to be at least one of the corresponding roles which are listed and as such will read the limitation as “…wherein the plurality of roles further comprises at least one of transporter, carrier, charger, or destroyer…”.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear how a swarm unit (given the generality of what could produce a swarm in the 112b rejection of claim 1) has a surface, especially if such units are determined to be drones. Provided the explanations of Figs. 3A-4F ([0041-0042]), Examiner best interprets a surface unit to be any such unit which moves in front of a neighboring unit.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by a good swarm unit. Provided the explanation of Figs. 4A-4F, it is best understood that a good swarm unit is any such swarm unit which is operational.
Regarding claims 11, 16, and 17, Examiner cannot ascertain the meets and bounds of the term compromised. Compromised can mean that the unit is one which is not failed but reduced in operation or alternatively one which has been corrupted by third-party attacks to the system. As such, Examiner will interpret the claims with intended latter meaning which is a unit which has been corrupted by a third-party.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…maintain a set position in case of power loss or intentional power down” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by a power loss or power-down action in this case given the possibility that units might be drones which, in the event of power loss, would not be able to maintain a flight position. Thus, Examiner will instead infer a power loss to be any such disconnection, including that of a communication link which is disengaged.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “…repairing or discarding the corrupt message based on intent and recovery results” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is an intent and recovery result in this case. More specifically, Examiner cannot ascertain if this is an intent and recovery of the message itself, an intent and recovery of the corruption, or an intent and recovery corresponding to the action of repair or discard action. Examiner best infers this to be that of the decided repair or discard action in which if the repair fails, then a discard is determined to be suitable such that there must be an intended recovery of the corrupted message or broadcast chain before the message is discarded.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…reporting, by a swarm unit, a neighboring swarm unit, wherein the neighboring swarm unit is in neighbour of the swarm unit and the neighboring swarm unit has failed or compromised, wherein the reporting is for avoidance, repair, or disposal” in lines 2-4. It is unclear what it means to report a neighboring swarm unit specifically for avoidance, repair, or disposal. The avoidance, repair, and disposal may be considered as that of the neighbor swarm unit itself, or that of a feature of the neighboring swarm unit such as a communication link. Examiner will best interpret such a limitation as the avoidance, repair, or disposal of the unit in the communication network structure.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “…summarizing path information for expected unit routes” in line 2. It is unclear, given that claim 3 is discussing the compression of messages, if the path information and routes are those of communication routes or those of navigation routes. Examiner assumes such routes are most likely navigation routes and as such will reject the claim using this interpretation.
Claim 19 is rejected as being dependent on claim 18.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections provided herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghaderi (“Painting the Sky - The Art and Technolgy Behind MAVSDK Drone Shows and IoT Swarms - Alireza Ghaderi”, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Ghaderi discloses a method for 3D swarm shape formation, recovery, and movement (Presenter describes various methods for managing drone swarms specifically regarding the formation, recovery paths, and movement of drones.), the method comprising:
generating, an instruction set for swarm shape formation using one or more central units, wherein the instruction set comprises shaping and movement instructions (At 6:55-9:56 of the presentation, the control dashboard, i.e., central unit, generates instructions for forming the shape based on user input, with the resulting instruction set comprising complete trajectories, velocities, accelerations, and more.);
receiving the instruction set from the one or more central units, by each of a plurality of mother units (The presenter discusses and demos a leader-follower architecture which uses “leader” drones, i.e., mother units, which receive instruction from the coordinator, i.e., central unit, and uses onboard capabilities to perform the directed mission (see demo at 15:37-17:20 for explanation of system). Additionally, Fig. 2a-2c in attached file are various screenshots displaying such system architectures for leader-follower system.);
transmitting discrete instructions by the plurality of mother units to one or more child units of a plurality of child units (Follower units, i.e., child units, are described to simply “follow” the leader, i.e., mother units, and are not required to have higher level processing systems and only need to be connected to the leader drone, thus receiving discrete instructions from the leader unit (see Explanation at 16:55-17:22).),
wherein each of the plurality of mother units and one or more child units is a swarm unit that is replaceable (The explanation from 14:55-17:21 which demonstrates the malleability of drone roles, wherein clusters of drones may trade out different follower drones or leader drones depending on the mission or the assigned task.),
wherein similar swarm units move in close proximity (See Fig. 2c in attached file which shows clustering of drones which move in close proximity according to their leader-follower hierarchy.).
Regarding claim 2, Ghaderi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the one or more central units, an input for the swarm shape formation, wherein the input comprises 2- or 3-dimensional graphic or animation (See Fig. 1 of attached file which shows a second step of importing user-designed animation for the show to the control dashboard, i.e., central unit. This design is described and shown as a 3-dimensional animation developed by a user (see Explanation at 6:55-7:32 regarding design of animation).),
wherein the one or more central units are configured to process the input to predict missing parts of the instruction set to produce a complete 3-dimensional shape and its movement coordinates (Presenter describes that the control dashboard “does all the hard work for you” and sets launch position, coordinated system management, acceleration, velocity, trajectories and more (see Explanation at 7:32-9:56 regarding organization of drones after user input of the animation). Thus, the control dashboard, i.e., central unit, processes the input and predicts missing parts of the instruction set therefore completing the shape animation and movement coordinates associated with such an animation.).
Regarding claim 3, Ghaderi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
compressing, the instruction set by removal of predictable or irrelevant information based on its destination (As instructions are propagated through the leadership command chain, the level of instruction are reduced such that follower drones need only be connected to their corresponding leader and receive only the instructions required for the function of the swarm mission (see Explanation provided at 16:55-17:22 regarding mission instruction and function of leader/follower drones). Such will be considered as the equivalent claim language in light of the 112b rejection of claim 3 above.).
Regarding claim 14, Ghaderi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein two or more mother units of the plurality of mother units are configured for maintaining shaping instructions in a decentralized way (By configuring a system with multiple sublevels of leadership which disseminate instructions to follower drones, each sublevel becomes decentralized and as such the mother units are configured for maintaining shaping instructions in a decentralized way (see Fig. 2a-b of the attached file).).
Regarding claim 15, Ghaderi discloses the method of claim 14,
wherein a mother unit of the two or more mother units is configured to provide localized shaping instructions to the one or more child units as a sub-swarm in an overall swarm shape formation (Fig. 2b of the attached file shows the aspect of the video which discusses layered leadership hierarchies in which the intermediate nodes (yellow nodes) are follower units which are directed by the leader units (green nodes) and create sub-swarms with corresponding blue nodes which are additional follower units which receive instruction from the intermediate yellow nodes. Such instructions pertain to the relevant shape formations which each swarm is responsible for maintaining.).
NOTE: In the above rejection of Claim 15, Examiner references node colors while the NPL document of associated screenshots will be attached in greyscale. Please access the corresponding Youtube video for the referred to color key (14:52-15:36; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VzVgdEDjW8).
Regarding claim 18, Ghaderi discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the step of compressing further comprises:
summarizing path information for expected unit routes (Path information of expected routes is summarized via the compression as such path information for follower drones is reduced such that the follower drone need only to remain connected to the leader drone, and the leader drone receives more sophisticated instruction based on a mission goal (see Explanation provided at 16:55-17:22 regarding mission instruction and function of leader/follower drones).).
Claims 1, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano (US 2022/0388164 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawano discloses a method for 3D swarm shape formation, recovery, and movement (Methods of platooning formations of robotic units are disclosed. Those methods regard 3D shape formations, recovery, and movement patterns as shown in the Figures.), the method comprising:
generating, an instruction set for swarm shape formation using one or more central units, wherein the instruction set comprises shaping and movement instructions (Units of Fig. 17 are used to execute instructions of the control method as described in the flow chart of Fig. 18. “In this way, the respective start positions and the respective goal positions are respectively adjacent to the other start positions and goal positions in at least any direction of the vertical, horizontal and height directions, and platoon shapes in the start positions and the goal positions of the robots are each one mass in any shape” [0038]. Thus, with regard to the starting and goal platoon shapes, the movement instructions are relevant to shaping a goal position. See Figs. 1-16 for examples of shaping.);
receiving the instruction set from the one or more central units, by each of a plurality of mother units; transmitting discrete instructions by the plurality of mother units to one or more child units of a plurality of child units (Head units, i.e., mother units, are provided with instructions on a destination position D which is to be reached. The Head unit is moved to position D and those units which are between said Head and Tail unit, i.e., intermediate units and tail units are child units which follow the head unit, and belonging to the set of robot units moves to fill intermediate positions to remain connected to the Head which moved. (see [0144-0159] for a specific example regarding Fig. 15)),
wherein each of the plurality of mother units and one or more child units is a swarm unit that is replaceable (In Figs. 15(B) and (D), the same unit is selected as a Head unit while the child units (tail and follower units) change. It is also true that a different Head may be selected in the iterations which platoon alters its shape.),
wherein similar swarm units move in close proximity (Those units which are selected in the set between Head and Tail units move together so as to remain connected, and thus are similar units which move in close proximity.).
Regarding claim 10, Kawano discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
enabling non-surface swarm units inferring their movement or other instructions from primed swarm units, wherein the primed swarm units comprise shape’s surface swarm units (Fig. 5 shows an instructed tunneling movement pattern wherein the head, i.e., primed unit and surface unit, directs the movement of the tail, i.e., non-surface unit, to follow said movement path.).
Regarding claim 21, Kawano discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the swarm units move relative to each other using attraction and repulsion forces, wherein the attraction and repulsion forces are created using magnetic fields and/or swarm medium manipulation (Paragraph [0011] describes movement patterns and connectivity of robot units while transforming platooning positions. Such movement is considered as an attraction force as the units follow movement of a head unit through a tail unit while remaining connected, thus the movement of one unit attracting the movement of another to follow such movement (see Fig. 5). Such movement will be considered as a swarm medium manipulation as such “…connectivity of a robot structure that robot units form a mass robot structure by each of the robot units being adjacent to other robot units” [0011].).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Guo et al. (“Secure Broadcast Protocol for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Swarms”, 2020).
Regarding claim 4, Ghaderi teaches the method of claim 3.
However, Ghaderi does not explicitly teach …encrypting, the instruction set using a plurality of keys for relay and processing, wherein the plurality of keys are known by the plurality of mother units and/or one or more child units.
Guo, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …encrypting, the instruction set using a plurality of keys for relay and processing, wherein the plurality of keys are known by the plurality of mother units and/or one or more child units (“The leader, u0, has I0 = sk0. It also has the group membership information to determine the sequence of the chain. By collecting g ski from each follower, u0 can compute K by computing Ii one by one. For follower ui , it has ski . It can compute Ii by (g I(i−1) ) ski mod p. With Ii and g skj , where j > i, K can be computed” (Section III.B). Thus, there is a method for encrypting messages between drones using a specific broadcast key algorithm for relay and processing of messages between drones in a given swarm unit. Such keys as described above are known by the leaders and followers of each respective swarm unit.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the communications of the drones in Ghaderi’s demonstration to include encryption processes as described by Guo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the use of encryption keys and updates to such keys prevent man-in-the-middle attacks through proper authentication methods (Guo, Section III.C).
Regarding claim 5, Ghaderi as modified by Guo (references made to Ghaderi) the method of claim 4,
wherein each of the swarm units is configured for at least one role from a plurality of roles, wherein the plurality of roles comprises disseminating local instructions and receiving the local instructions (Fig. 2c of attached file shows on the left “3 Independent Clusters” and during explanation (see 15:36-17:21) presenter refers to a cluster performing an “operation”, i.e., assigned a role, and in specific example of a car-following operation describes disseminating local instructions from leader drone and receiving local instructions by follower drones in that the leader drone is required to perform tracking and surveillance operations while follower drones need not have such capabilities but merely remain connected to leader drone.).
Regarding claim 13, Ghaderi teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Ghaderi does not teach …detecting a corrupt message; and
upon detecting the corrupt message, repairing or discarding the corrupt message based on intent and recovery results.
Guo, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …detecting a corrupt message (Section IV.D detects poor quality, i.e., unreliable and unstable, networks which may lead to lost or otherwise corrupted message pipelines.); and
upon detecting the corrupt message, repairing or discarding the corrupt message based on intent and recovery results (“Our protocol distributes key information through a single broadcast message in each re-keying. To distinguish the keys used after different events, the leader also inserts a version number in the message. A follower who receives the message should acknowledge the leader (step 3 and 7). The leader then knows whether all followers have received the new key information successfully. If not all followers have received the message, the key information will be appended in a regular broadcast message that is encrypted using the new key” (Section IV.D). Thus, in the event that a message pipeline has been corrupted, the leader re-keys messages to corresponding drones and requests a receipt of the new key information. Such rekeying is an example of a repair of the corrupt message chain. The section continues on to discuss protocol for drones which do not send receipt of new key to the leader.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the communication structure of Ghaderi to include the re-keying protocols of Guo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such re-keying protocols increase security through authentication procedures and prevent “man-in-the-middle” attacks on the communication network for drone broadcast systems (Guo, Section III.C).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Guo and further in view of Beaman et al. (US Patent No. 9,561,852 B1; hereinafter “Beaman”).
Regarding claim 6, Ghaderi as modified by Guo teaches the method of claim 4.
However, Ghaderi as modified by Guo does not explicitly teach …wherein the plurality of roles further comprises transporter, carrier, charger, destroyer,
wherein a swarm unit in the role of the transporter is configured for moving resources in the swarm shape formation, wherein the resources comprise fuel and payload;
wherein a swarm unit in the role of the carrier is configured to pull a failed swarm unit during the swarm shape formation, towards a storage, disposal container, or a swarm dead-zone location;
wherein a swarm unit in the role of the charger is configured to collect energy more effectively for usage or sharing with other swarm units,
wherein a swarm unit in the role of the destroyer is configured to safely eliminate or neutralize compromised or failed swarm units during the swarm shape formation.
Beaman, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the plurality of roles further comprises transporter, carrier, charger, destroyer,
wherein a swarm unit in the role of the transporter is configured for moving resources in the swarm shape formation, wherein the resources comprise fuel and payload (“Referring now to FIGS. 4-7 an embodiment of a drone 220 is shown that is configured to carry a payload 26 and perform an in-flight transfer of the payload 26 to another drone 240 or a docking platform 210” (C6, L31-34). Thus, there are transporter drones which move resources, i.e., payloads, between a plurality of drones in the system.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the UAV system of Ghaderi to include multiple UAVs with role of transporter as taught by Beaman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by generating in-flight transfers of payloads, system efficiency is increased and the required energy in generating the transfer is reduced as no such additional landing and take-off is required when exchanging the payload.
NOTE: The above struck through limitations of claim 6 were not considered as the rejection required information regarding only one of the role of transporter, carrier, charger, and destroyer (see 112b rejection of claim 6).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Ren et al. (“Intelligent Adaptive Gossip-Based Broadcast Protocol for UAV-MEC Using Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning”, 2023).
Regarding claim 7, Ghaderi teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Ghaderi does not teach …wherein the discrete instructions are relayed by gossip among the swarm units.
Ren, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the discrete instructions are relayed by gossip among the swarm units (Section I and Fig. 1 describe gossip relays from a main leader drone to a plurality of clusters of follower drones.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the methods of Ghaderi to include the gossip broadcasting messages of Ren with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the disclosed methods reduce propagation delays and message redundancy compared to other such gossip and flood broadcasting methods (Ren, Section I).
Regarding claim 8, Ghaderi as modified by Ren (references made to Ren) teaches the method of claim 7,
wherein the relayed by gossip comprises broadcasting or sending a message to a specific swarm unit of the swarm units (Fig. 1 shows a hierarchy in which the initial message propagates to one of two drone clusters off of the highlighted leader drone and thus broadcasting a message to a specific swarm unit of the swarm units.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Ren and further in view of EMQX (“Introduction to MQTT Message Expiry Interval | MQTT 5 Features”, 2023).
Regarding claim 9, Ghaderi as modified by Ren teaches the method of claim 8.
However, Ghaderi as modified does not teach …wherein the message is conjured to automatically decay based on hops or time since generation.
EMQX, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the message is conjured to automatically decay based on hops or time since generation (Exemplifies a case where a publisher issues a message which has a set “expiry interval” which no longer transmits messages after a set period of time after the message is issued, i.e., generated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the messages of Ghaderi to include an expiry interval as taught by EMQX. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such expiry interval allows messages that are no longer necessary to expire and stop transmission, thus reducing network bandwidth and free up any resources that would otherwise be necessary to transmit these messages.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Stark et al. (US 2014/0249693 A1; hereinafter “Stark”).
Regarding claim 11, Ghaderi teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Ghaderi does not explicitly teach …allowing good swarm units of the swarm units to maneuver around failed or compromised swarm units of the swarm units.
Stark, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …allowing good swarm units of the swarm units to maneuver around failed or compromised swarm units of the swarm units (“As shown, the fleet of multicopters 130 is configured for inter-UAV or multicopter communications 135, and, as explained below, this intercommunication allows the multicopter 130 to safely react to a determination that another multicopter 130 is in a close proximity to avoid collisions while generally remaining on a predefined flight path” [0026]. Thus, the UAVs which are operational in the airspace are configured to maneuver around other UAVs which are determined to be in close collision proximity, such as those UAVs which have failed and are not on the initial trajectory. See also [0035] and [0067] for additional support.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the UAV system of Ghaderi to include inter-UAV avoidance protocols as taught by Stark with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such a modification reduces inter-air collisions due to unexpected trajectory errors and increases independent operability of drones within swarm formations.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Guo and further in view of Raptopoulos et al. (US 2014/0032034 A1; hereinafter “Raptopoulos”).
Regarding claim 12, Ghaderi as modified by Guo teaches the method of claim 5.
However, Ghaderi as modified does not explicitly teach …instructing one or more swarm units of the swarm units to maintain a set position in case of power loss or intentional power-down.
Raptopoulos, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …instructing one or more swarm units of the swarm units to maintain a set position in case of power loss or intentional power-down (“For example, the pre-programmed maneuvers can direct the UAV to hover or circle in the airspace for a certain period of time to reestablish its communication link” [0046]. Thus, in the event of a communication loss, the UAV is instructed to hover, i.e., maintain a set position.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the UAV system of Ghaderi to include the hovering recovery position of Raptopoulos with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by allowing the UAV to hover in place while awaiting a reestablished connection, the UAV will avoid crossing virtual perimeters or boundaries of no fly zones, thus increasing safety of the system (Raptopoulos, [0046]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Kang et al. (US 2025/0125860 A1; hereinafter “Kang”; Priority to KR 10-2023-0136626 filed on October 13, 2023).
Regarding claim 16, Ghaderi teaches the method of claim 14.
However, Ghaderi does not explicitly teach …taking, by a mother unit of the plurality of mother units, role of another mother unit of the plurality of mother unit in case the another mother unit fails or gets compromised.
Kang, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …taking, by a child unit of the swarm, role of another mother unit of the plurality of mother unit in case the another mother unit fails or gets compromised (“As shown in FIG. 8, when an error, such as being shot down or the like, occurs with an existing master drone, any one SDa of a plurality of slave drones may be set as a new master drone MDnew. Also, when the new master drone MDnew is set, the controller may update a master group” [0090]. Thus, when a master, i.e., mother, unit has an error, i.e., fails, there is a child unit within the cluster, i.e., swarm, which takes on the leadership role of the failed unit.).
However, Kang does not teach the reassignment as …taking, by a mother unit of the plurality of mother units… Provided that Kang evidences an election process of a new master drone as a result of a failed master drone, and the system of Kang hosts a plurality of master units for each cluster of the system (see MD1-3 of Fig. 1), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try electing another master (mother) unit of the plurality of mother units to take on the role of the failed master unit with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would be chosen from a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success and thus is supported by “obvious to try” rationale (see MPEP 2143.I(E)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the UAV leadership system of Ghaderi to include the leadership replacement process as taught by Kang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by replacing a master unit which has reported an error upon detection of said error, disruptions in the communication chain and overall system operations may be reduced.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Ren and further in view of Kang.
Regarding claim 17, Ghaderi as modified by Ren teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises:
However, Ghaderi as modified does not explicitly teach …reporting, by a swarm unit, a neighboring swarm unit, wherein the neighboring swarm unit is in neighbour of the swarm unit and the neighboring swarm unit has failed or compromised, wherein the reporting is for avoidance, repair, or disposal.
Kang, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …reporting, by a swarm unit, a neighboring swarm unit, wherein the neighboring swarm unit is in neighbour of the swarm unit and the neighboring swarm unit has failed or compromised, wherein the reporting is for avoidance, repair, or disposal (“In other words, the controller may set a new master drone, and the new master drone may transmit a current state or a manipulation state to another master drone or the server. Accordingly, it is possible to facilitate the progression and control of overall operations. Further, when an error or the like occurs with an existing master drone MD, the existing master drone MD may be changed to a slave drone SCa by the controller. Subsequently, the server may communicate with the new master drone MDnew” [0091-0092]. Thus, there is a report to the server and other neighboring master drones that there has been a replacement of leadership within the swarm such that the server and other drones are aware of the error which has occurred and newly established communication chains. Such report is determined to avoid disruptions in the communication and additionally repair the communication chain which has been disrupted. In addition, there are alternative interpretations in which the report may be to repair the failed master drone by reassigning the drone to a slave role, or destroy communication to the failed master drone entirely.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the swarm system of Ghaderi to include the reporting function of Kang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such a modification mitigates disruptions in the communication chain which may result from changes in the leadership structure and associated communication channels.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaderi in view of Raptopoulos.
Regarding claim 19, Ghaderi teaches the method of claim 18.
However, Ghaderi does not explicitly teach …wherein the step of compressing further comprises: enabling unit recovery from loss or corruption of part of the instruction.
Raptopoulos, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the step of compressing further comprises: enabling unit recovery from loss or corruption of part of the instruction (“The UAV can also include safety features related to control and navigation. For example, if the command or control link between the UAV and the ground station is broken because of environmental or technological issues, the UAV can execute pre-programmed maneuvers. For example, the pre-programmed maneuvers can direct the UAV to hover or circle in the airspace for a certain period of time to reestablish its communication link. If the link is not reestablished, then the UAV can return to a known location, such as the launch location in some embodiments. The UAV can also chose to land at its current location in an embodiment” [0046]. Thus, the loss of a communication link, and thus the loss of part of a command instruction, results in recovery actions regarding drone navigation, thus enabling unit recovery.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the navigation and shaping instructions of Ghaderi to include the recovery instructions of Raptopoulos when communications are lost with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such recovery features increase safety of autonomous navigations in the event of emergency situations such as lost power or lost communication in UAVs (Raptopoulos, [0046]).
Regarding claim 20, Ghaderi teaches the method of claim 15.
Raptopoulos, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the sub-swarm is configured to operate independent of a main shape swarm in case of separation (“For example, if the command or control link between the UAV and the ground station is broken because of environmental or technological issues, the UAV can execute pre-programmed maneuvers. For example, the pre-programmed maneuvers can direct the UAV to hover or circle in the airspace for a certain period of time to reestablish its communication link” [0046]. Thus, there is an independent operation of the UAV in the event that communications are disrupted between UAV and central command unit.), wherein the method further comprises:
returning of the sub-swarm, by following preset instructions, to the main shape swarm or a homing pod (“If the link is not reestablished, then the UAV can return to a known location, such as the launch location in some embodiments” [0046]. Thus, the UAV is expected to return to the launch location, i.e., homing pod, in the event that a communication link cannot be reestablished.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the UAVs of Ghaderi to include independent operation and homing instructions as taught by Raptopoulos with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such independent operations and homing instructions which result from a disconnected communication between the central unit and swarm units increases safety for operation of autonomous drone vehicles by presetting emergency procedures when power and communication failures occur (Raptopoulos, [0046]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Given the uncertainty regarding the actual application of the invention, Examiner has attached those publications which were additionally considered but not used in the rejection to the file. Such publications are listed on the PTO-892 form (“Notice of References Cited”) alongside those publications which were used in the above prior art rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656