CTFR 18/834,271 CTFR 95059 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2025 and 2/10/2026 are being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-31 AIA 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 in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31). Claim Objections Applicant amended the claims as suggested and thus the objections are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Applicant removed the indefinite terminology, and thus the 112b rejections are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Applicant’s amendments sufficiently integrate the invention into a practical application, and thus the claims are deemed eligible and the 101 rejection withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffalitzky (US9459620B1) In view of Hassan (Dec-PPCPP: A Decentralized Predator–Prey-based Approach to Adaptive Coverage Path Planning Amid Moving Obstacles, 2020) . Regarding claim 1, Schaffalitzky discloses; An operation schedule planning system ( disclosed as a control service, element 302 ) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions ( disclosed as a server memory, element 332 ), and at least one processor ( disclosed a management module, element 302, which is included in servers ) configured to execute the instructions to; specify an operation [ interpreted to include information related to an operation type, position, time or combination thereof of the obstacle, as suggested in paragraph 0016 of the specification ] of the obstacle ( disclosed as recognizing a gesture performed by a human user, Fig 6 610 ); output a second operation schedule of a mobile object ( disclosed as a UAV, element 200 ) in which an order of a plurality of operation elements included in a first operation schedule ( disclosed as a delivery instruction, Fig 6 602 ) of the mobile object is changed ( disclosed as proceeding in accordance with the determined human gesture and delivery instructions, Fig 6 612, such as a change or trajectory adjustment to a flight path, column 14 lines 19-24 ) ; and control the mobile object according to the second operation schedule (disclosed as proceeding in accordance with the determined human gesture and delivery instructions, Fig 6 612, such as a change or trajectory adjustment to a flight path, column 14 lines 19-24) . While Schaffalitzky does not explicitly teach; detect a location of an obstacle within an area where a mobile object is configured to move such that an operation element at a location within the area farthest from the location where the obstacle is detected becomes an operation element to be executed first. Hassan teaches; detect a location of an obstacle within an area where a mobile object is configured to move ( taught as encountering obstacles within a certain proximity to itself, III. The DEC-PPCPP Approach, page 2 column 2 ) such that an operation element at a location within the area farthest from the location where the obstacle is detected becomes an operation element to be executed first ( taught as, upon detecting an obstacle, finding the obstacle free neighbors within a radius, and moving to the farthest target, III. The DEC-PPCPP Approach, page 3 column 1 ) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate path/operation scheduling modification as taught by Hassan in the system taught by Schaffalitzky in order to improve routing and avoid collisions. Such a method as described by Hassan helps solve the issues of disrupting other robots, avoid repeated coverage, and achieve minimal cost in terms of path length, execution time etc. (II Problem Definition, page 2 column 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize the benefits of modifying Schaffalitzky with the teachings of Hassan to improve path coverage planning for operations. Regarding claim 2, Schaffalitzky as modified by Hassan discloses; The operation schedule planning system according to claim 1 ( see claim 1 rejection ). Schaffalitsky further teaches; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to specify an operation of the obstacle based on sensing information regarding the obstacle ( disclosed as using sensors on the UAV including cameras, element 204, to receive information for, for example, human gestures, column 4 lines 2-8 ). Regarding claim 3, Schaffalitzky as modified by Hassan discloses; The operation schedule planning system according to claim 1 ( see claim 1 rejection ). Schaffalitsky further teaches; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the order of the plurality of operation elements when the operation of the obstacle is a predetermined operation ( disclosed as a predetermined gesture database, which corresponds gestures or groups of gestures to be instructions, column 7 lines 23-29 ). Regarding claim 4, Schaffalitzky as modified by Hassan discloses; The operation schedule planning system according to claim 1 ( see claim 1 rejection ). Schaffalitsky further teaches; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to specify an operation characteristic indicating a characteristic of an operation to be taken by a target object ( disclosed as profile characteristics of the user, which indicate preferred times, locations and interactions with the user as part of the delivery plan, column 7 lines 3-13 ); and plan the first operation schedule of the mobile object based on the operation characteristic of the target object and outputting the planned first operation schedule of the mobile object ( disclosed as a delivery plan using customer information, including a delivery location and profile characteristics, such as specific times, personally meeting with the UAV to receive a package and guide it, column 7 lines 3-13 ). Regarding claim 5, Schaffalitzky as modified by Hassan discloses; The operation schedule planning system according to claim 4 ( see claim 4 rejection ). Schaffalitsky further teaches; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: specify an influence of an operation of the target object on a candidate operation of the mobile object based on the operation characteristic of the target object ( disclosed as gesture based controls that modify/adjust the UAV’s delivery plan, column 7 lines 29-40 ); and plan the first operation schedule of the mobile object including a candidate operation of the mobile object selected based on the influence as the operation element (disclosed as proceeding in accordance with the determined human gesture and delivery instructions, Fig 6 612, such as a change or trajectory adjustment to a flight path, column 14 lines 19-24 ). Regarding claim 7, Schaffalitzky as modified by Hassan discloses; The operation schedule planning system according to claim 4 ( see claim 4 rejection ). Schaffalitsky further teaches; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine [ interpreted to mean a classification of an operation type, such as exemplified in paragraph 0043 of the specification ] an operation of the target object based on the sensing information ( disclosed as detecting gestured of the human user and using the information to determine intent to interact with the UAV, column 7 lines 29-48 ), and specify the operation characteristic of the target object based on the predicted operation of the target object ( disclosed as determining the instruction based on the gestures/predicted intent of the human user, column 7 lines 29-48 ). Regarding claims 8-12, 14-18, and 20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1-5 and 7. Therefore, claims 8-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-5 and 7, wherein claims 8-12 and 14-18 correspond to claims 1-5, and claim 20 corresponds to claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffalitzky (US9459620B1) as modified by Hassan (Dec-PPCPP: A Decentralized Predator–Prey-based Approach to Adaptive Coverage Path Planning Amid Moving Obstacles, 2020) and further in view of Ferguson (US20190056729A1) . Regarding claim 6, Schaffalitzky as modified by Hassan teaches; The operation schedule planning system according to claim 5 ( see claim 5 rejection ). However, Schaffalitzky does not explicitly teach; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine a risk level of a candidate operation of the mobile object based on the operation characteristic of the target object, and plan the operation schedule of the first mobile object using a candidate operation whose determined risk level is lower than a predetermined level. Ferguson teaches; wherein the at least one processor ( taught as processors, paragraph 0169, for a vehicle such as an aerial drone, paragraph 0120 ) is configured to execute the instructions to: determine a risk level of a candidate operation of the mobile object based on the operation characteristic of the target object ( taught as determining a hazard condition and likelihood determination based on the threshold chance of the hazard occurring, paragraph 0150, such as for collisions based on predicted/estimated trajectories, paragraph 0148 ), and plan the operation schedule of the first mobile object using a candidate operation whose determined risk level is lower than a predetermined level ( taught as performing an operation, such as a warning or mitigation action to prevent a collision, paragraph 0150 ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a scheduled operation based on risk as taught by Ferguson in the system taught by Schaffalitzky in order to improve safety. Such prediction of hazards allows action to mitigate or avoid potential collisions, as suggested in Ferguson (paragraph 0150). As Schaffalitzky already suggests the recognition of human interaction for safety purposes (column 2 lines 10-16), it would be obvious to extend the invention, such as by using techniques taught by Ferguson, to further include more hazard calculations to improve safety. Regarding claims 13 and 19, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 6. Therefore, claims 13 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 . Response to Arguments Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the remarks that the claims are eligible under 101. The examiner agrees, and withdraws the 101 rejections. Applicant argues on pages 11-14 that the amended claims overcome the anticipatory rejection. The examiner agrees, and withdraws the anticipatory rejection. However, a new 103 rejection in light of Hassan has been made above to rectify the deficiencies of Schaffalitzky. Applicant argues on page 13 that “such that an operation element at a location within the area furthest from the location where the obstacle is detected becomes an operation element to be executed first” is not mere routine optimization or the like. The examiner notes that a new reference has been relied on to more explicitly teach the described optimization, rendering the argument moot. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For further inventory management and planning; US20200082487A1 and US20220382439A1 Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30. 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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. /GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/834,271 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights