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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Notice to Applicant(s)
This application has been examined. Claims 1-10 are pending.
The prior art submitted on August 15, 2024 has been considered.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. NOTE: the following detailed rejection is made with respect to independent claim 1, directed toward a device, i.e. machine. However, the analysis is applicable to independent claim 6, which present analogous limitations and are directed toward a method (i.e. process).
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 6 are respectively directed toward a machine and a process. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold) and additional elements (emphasized in underline) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
[Claim 1] (Original)
An unmanned aerial vehicle information acquisition system comprising:
a plurality of receivers that receive identification information from an unmanned
aerial vehicle by wireless communication, the identification information including
airframe specific information assigned to the unmanned aerial vehicle, position
information indicating a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and time information, and that are disposed at different places; and
an information processing device that is connected to the plurality of receivers, that acquires the identification information received by the plurality of receivers, and that processes the identification information, wherein at least one of the plurality of receivers connected to the information processing device is mounted on a 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.
The system includes an processing device which collection information form the receivers and processes the identification which can be performed by a person. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea with respect to step 2A, prong 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 computer 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.”
Regarding the additional limitations of a plurality of receivers that receive identification information from an unmanned aerial vehicle by wireless communication, the identification information including airframe specific information assigned to the unmanned aerial vehicle, position information indicating a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and time information, and that are disposed at different places, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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 computer 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. see 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 Revised Guidance, representative 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 limitation of “receive identification information from an unmanned arial vehicle by wireless communication”, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities and these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 7-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiromichi (JP 2021-190951 – See Google Translation pages 1-27).
As per claim 1, Hiromichi discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle information acquisition system which includes a plurality of receivers that receive identification information from an unmanned aerial vehicle by wireless communication (see at least figure 1, items 110, 300; pages 7, 10), the identification information inherently including airframe specific information assigned to the unmanned aerial vehicle, position information indicating a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and time information, and that are disposed at different places (see at least figures 3, 4; pages 11, 14; and an information processing device that is connected to the plurality of receivers, that acquires the identification information received by the plurality of receivers, and that processes the identification information (see figure 1, item 200; pages 7-9), wherein at least one of the plurality of receivers connected to the information processing device is mounted on a mobile object (see at least page 8, third paragraph).
As per claim 2, Hiromichi discloses that the information processing device includes a memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to control a management means for controlling flight management of the an unmanned aerial vehicle to be managed to which the airframe specific information included in the identification information is assigned using the position information included in the acquired identification information, the unmanned aerial vehicle to be managed being the unmanned aerial vehicle whose the identification information is received by the plurality of receivers (see at least pages 8, 11 and 20).
As per claim 3, Hiromichi discloses that the information processing device includes a memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to statistically process processing the acquired identification information (see at least pages 8, 11 and 20).
As per claim 4, Hiromichi discloses that at least one of the plurality of receivers connected to the information processing device includes a detector that detects a surrounding situation, and the information processing device further-includes a memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to acquire information indicating the surrounding situation detected by the detector from the at least one of the plurality of receivers including the detector; and estimate a situation of an airspace in which the unmanned aerial vehicle is flying using the acquired information (see at least pages 3, 5 and 12).
With respect to claims 6-9, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejections above. They are therefore considered rejected as set forth above
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) A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, nowwitstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiromichi as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Nishita (US 2018/0239368).
With respect to claim 5, Hiromichi discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except for the instructions to acquire the identification information from a fixed receiver whose position is fixed, the receiver being included in the plurality of receivers which receive the identification information from the unmanned aerial vehicle; and detect detects a flight position of the unmanned aerial vehicle related to the airframe specific information included in the identification information acquired from the fixed receiver whose position is fixed using not only the position information included in the identification information but also information about a position of a fixed place of the fixed receiver that received the identification information. However, such limitation is taught in at least figures 1-3 and paragraphs 24-26, 35-37 of the Nishita reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishita into the system of Hiromichi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the system with the enhanced capacity of using the position of the fixed received along with the position of the UAV as desired.
With respect to claim 10, the limitation of this claim has been noted in the rejection above. It is therefore considered rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The following references are cited as being of general interest: Hawes et al. (9,802,701), Estkowski (2014/0156109), Jensen (2020/0410874), Choi et al. (2023/0095120) and Gong et al. (2023/0237918).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN QUANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:00am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, can be reached at 570-270-7016.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
January 14, 2026
/TAN Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661