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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/849,543 filled on 09/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In the drawings, Fig. 5 presents an unlabeled rectangular box “Return”. It is not clear what does the applicant refer by “Return”. Additionally, in block S52 and S55, in response to “NO”, the signal/data flow is presented with an arrow mark, and therefore it is not clear whether the response is feedback to S51 block.
b. In the drawings, Fig. 8 and 10 present reference number 51 and 512 for the same rectangular box, which causes a conflict.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “drive control unit” in Claims 1, 4, 8-12; “communication unit” in claims 1 and 16; “other-device information reception unit” in claim 1; “recording unit” in claim 5; “analysis unit” in claim 14-16; have has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification, , filed 09/23/2024, in para. [0078], cites “the flight controller 42 corresponding to the drive control unit”. Therefore, “the drive control unit is interpreted as “controller”.
A review of the original specification, filed 09/23/2024, Para. [0062], cites “remote ID reception unit 522 includes a demodulation circuit”, and in para. [0078], cites “the remote ID reception unit 522 corresponding to the other-device information reception unit”. Therefore, other-device information reception unit is interpreted as any circuit that would be able to receive unique information sent out from another moving object.
In Specification, para. [0051], cites “the flight controller 42 records the position information of the drone 10 in the memory 80. The recording of the position information of the drone 10 may be periodically performed. In addition, the flight controller 42 records, in the memory 80, pieces of the unique information received from the other-device drones 101 to 103 and the like”. Therefore, recording unit in claim 5 is interpreted as the flight controller 42.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14-16 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 elements “analysis unit” in claims 14-16; are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the corresponding entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such as one of ordinary skills in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the corresponding claim function in claims 14-16.
Therefore, the claims 14-16 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for “analysis unit” to perform the corresponding claimed function in claims 14-16. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 20 recites “A computer program for executing information processing in an unmanned moving object, the computer program for causing a computer to execute:..”. Considering the open ended definition of the computer program, it is computer software per se and is not a "process," a "machine," a "manufacture" or a "composition of matter," as defined in 35 USC § 101. In order to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicants are advised to amend the claim limitations as “A[[a]] non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein computer program, which when executed by a central processing unit (CPU) to execute information processing in an unmanned moving object, and to execute a step of….”.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2022/0185474) in view of Fine (US 2020/0027358A1).
Claim 1. Imai (US 2022/0185474) teaches an unmanned moving object (See Para. [0018], [0030], [0037], discloses “unmanned aerial vehicle 100that moves in path that does not collide with another object”) comprising:
a drive control unit that controls driving of the unmanned moving object (See Para. [0041], “The control device 130 controls the unmanned aerial vehicle 100”, and/or see Abstract, Claims 1, 19, an para. [0017], [0042], cites “a movement control unit configured to control a movement the moving body/unmanned aerial vehicle”);
a communication unit that communicates with an operation device (See Para. [0045], “The communication control unit 134 may communicate with the wireless base station”); and
an other-device information reception unit that receives unique information sent out from another moving object for identifying presence and/or a position of the another moving object (See Para. [0030]-[0031], “the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 acquires the location information [construed as unique information] indicating a location of the object and the movement state of the object”, and/or see Para. [0049], “an object information receiving unit receives the object information including the location information of the object from the communication partner's aerial vehicle ).
Nevertheless, Imai fails to explicitly cites, remotely controls the unmanned moving object.
However, Fine (US 2020/0027358A1) teaches, remotely controls the unmanned moving object (See Para. [0018], Fig. 2, “the operator may send user command signals via a user interface 44 and/or a radio transmitter 46 to control the flight of aerial vehicle 12“, and/or see Para. [0004], [0020], [0055], [0059], [0071], discloses “the aerial vehicle is configured to be controlled by user command signals generated by a remotely positioned ground control station)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai with a remotely positioned ground control station to control aerial vehicle/unmanned moving object as taught by Fine in order to operate aerial vehicle remotely.
Claim 2. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, further comprising:
a detection unit that detects an obstacle present around the unmanned moving object (See Imai, Para. [0018]-[0019], [0022], [0029], [0046]-[0047], “detects an object [i.e. obstacle] around the unmanned aerial vehicle 100”, and see Para. [0037], “the first unmanned aerial vehicle 100 may refer to the shared object information to decide a movement path that does not collide with another object [i.e. obstacle]”. Additionally, see Fine, Para. [0033], discloses “obstacles near aerial vehicle 12”).
Claim 3. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 2, wherein the detection unit includes any one of, or a combination of two or more of a camera, an optical ranging sensor, a millimeter-wave ranging sensor, and an ultrasonic ranging sensor (See Imai, Para. [0022], “The camera 112, the millimeter wave radar 123, and the LiDAR 124 may be examples of sensors that detect objects around the unmanned aerial vehicle 100”).
Claim 4. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, wherein the drive control unit controls the driving of the unmanned moving object on a basis of the unique information (See Imai, Para. [0051], “The movement control unit 132 may control, based on a location of an approaching object that is an object which is predicted to enter the optical axis 115 of the optical wireless communication unit 114, the movement of the own aerial vehicle such that the approaching object is not located on the optical axis 115 of the optical wireless communication unit 114.”).
Claim 5. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, further comprising: a recording unit that records the unique information (See Imai, Para. [0031], “”camera 112 capture location information [i.e., unique information] of the object”. Additionally, see Fine, Para. [0006], [0021], discloses “record position of the aerial vehicle”).
Claim 13. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, wherein the communication unit and the other-device information reception unit are integrated (See Imai, Fig. 4, control device 130 including communication control unit and object detection unit, i.e., claimed reception unit, are integrated in unmanned aerial vehicle 100).
Claim 14. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1 further comprising: an analysis unit that analyzes the unique information (See Imai, Para. [0031], “the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 acquires, the location information of the object by analyzing the captured images continuously captured by the camera 112”) and identifies whether or not the unique information has been sent out from the another moving object and/or the position information of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0034], “a second unmanned aerial vehicle 100 share the object information of objects around the first unmanned aerial vehicle 100 and the second unmanned aerial vehicle 100, and the first unmanned aerial vehicle 100 moves such that the aircraft 210 is not located on an optical axis 115 of the optical wireless communication between the first unmanned aerial vehicle 100 and the second unmanned aerial vehicle 100”, and see Para. [0049], “The communication control unit 134 may also receive the object information (may be described as object information of another aerial vehicle) including the location information of the object”) .
Claims 6-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2022/0185474) in view of Fine (US 2020/0027358A1) and further in view of Kageyama (US 2001/0044697A1, this reference is from Internation search Report).
Claim 6. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, wherein the unique information includes at least position information of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0018], [0030], [0038], [0048]-[0050], discloses “location information of the object/the other unmanned aerial vehicle).
Nevertheless, the teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine fails to teach, where the unique information is an aircraft registration number of the another moving object.
However, Kageyama (US 2001/0044697A1, this reference is from Internation search Report) teaches, where the unique information is an aircraft registration number of the another moving object (See Para. [0138], “periodically broadcasts identification information/ Vehicle ID [i.e., registration number] and current position data to other vehicle”, and/or see Para. [0210], “an unmanned vehicle receives via inter-vehicle communication device 6 vehicle position data , Vehicle ID transmitted to it from another vehicle, and measurement time information for the other vehicle identified by this Vehicle ID”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai with sharing vehicle ID information, i.e., registration number with other vehicle as taught by Kageyama in order to execute a vehicle interference prevention process.
Claim 7. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 6, wherein the unique information further includes information of time at which the another moving object has sent out the unique information (See Kageyama, Para. [0210], “measurement time information for the other vehicle identified by this Vehicle ID”).
Claim 8. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Kageyama, teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 6, wherein the drive control unit identifies at least one of a relative position (See Imai, Para. [0030], “the location information indicating a relative location of the object with a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 as a starting point”), and a distance and direction of the another moving object with respect to the unmanned moving object on a basis of position information of the unmanned moving object, the aircraft registration number of the another moving object, and the position information of the another moving object (These are optional feature as followed by the phrase “at least one of”).
Claim 9. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 7, wherein, the drive control unit identifies a movement trajectory of the another moving object on a basis of the aircraft registration number of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0050]-[0051], “the movement state of the object”, where Kageyama discloses vehicle ID, i.e., aircraft registration number), the position information of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0053], “the location of the approaching object”), and the information of the time at which the another moving object has sent out the unique information (See Kageyama, at least, Para. [0031], [0035], [0037], [0052], [0092], [0094], discloses “position information for the other vehicle received via the communication means, time information indicating a reception time at which the position information is received, and the position information for its own vehicle”).
Claim 10. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 6, wherein the drive control unit controls the driving of the unmanned moving object on a basis of the position information of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0030], “location information indicating a location of the object [i.e. another moving object]”, and/or see Para. [0049], “receive the object information (may be described as object information of another aerial vehicle) including the location information of the object around the communication partner's aerial vehicle”).
Claim 11. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 9, wherein the drive control unit identifies a future position of the another moving object on a basis of the movement trajectory (See Kageyama, Para. [0040], [0047], “a future position of the other vehicle [i.e., another moving object]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai with determining a future position of other vehicle ID information, i.e., registration number with other vehicle as taught by Kageyama in order to execute a vehicle interference prevention process.
Claim 12. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 11, wherein the drive control unit controls the driving of the unmanned moving object on a basis of the future position of the another moving object (See Kageyama, Para. [0010], “on the basis of vehicle position data for other vehicles, perform control so as to prevent interference among vehicles”, and/or Para. [0250], [0277], “Unmanned vehicle 10 is then managed and controlled by monitoring station 20 so as to prevent it from entering the range of possible locations of the manned vehicle”, and see Para. [0027], “safely predict the location of the vehicle”, and/or see Para. [0040], “a future position of the other vehicle at a point in time coming a predetermined time interval after the time, or a range of movement of the other vehicle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fines with a prediction of vehicle location in future as taught by Kageyama in order to prevent interference among unmanned vehicles over an entire large work site.
Claim 15. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 14, but they fail to teach wherein the analysis unit further identifies a period in which the unique information is sent out.
However, Kageyama teaches, wherein the analysis unit further identifies a period in which the unique information is sent out (See Para. [0031], [0035], “time information indicating a reception time at which the position information is received”, and/or see Pra. [0052]-[0053], [0094], [0151], discloses “position information transmitted to it from another vehicle, and time information (either the reception time, position measurement time, or transmission time for this position information), estimates the likelihood of interference between itself and another vehicle, and performs appropriate control on the basis of this estimate so as to avoid interference between the vehicles”. Additionally, see Para. [0138], “each vehicle periodically broadcasts identification information identifying itself (hereinbelow termed "Vehicle ID") and current position data indicating the current position of itself to all other vehicles and to the monitoring station through UHF transmission, while also periodically broadcasting its own Vehicle ID and current position data [i.e., unique information] to proximate vehicles by SS transmission”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fines with a time point to transmit position information [i.e., unique information] as taught by Kageyama in order to prevent interference among unmanned vehicles over an entire large work site.
Claim 16. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 15, wherein the communication unit changes timing of transmitting and receiving information on a basis of the period identified by the analysis unit (See Kageyama, Para. [0140]-[0142], [0151], [0173], “When position data for an own vehicle is broadcast to other vehicle, transmitter 3 recognizes, by means of timing means such as a timer, the point in time at which it transmits this position data, and can transmit this transmission time information”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fines with a timer to transmit/receive information as taught by Kageyama in order to provide more precise location data.
Claim 17. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, but they fails to teach wherein the unique information includes information that is mandated by a country or a local government to be sent out when moving a moving object.
However, Kageyama teaches, wherein the unique information includes information that is mandated by a country or a local government to be sent out when moving a moving object (See Para. [0057], [0138], “each vehicle periodically broadcasts identification information identifying itself (hereinbelow termed "Vehicle ID"), where it is required by country or government law to issue an ID for each vehicle”, and Para. [0216], “position data and vehicle IDs are broadcast from the other vehicles”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fines with issuing vehicle ID for unmanned moving vehicle as taught by Kageyama in order to recognize unmanned vehicle and so as to managed /control by monitoring station to prevent it from entering the range of possible locations of the manned vehicle.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2022/0185474) in view of Fine (US 2020/0027358A1), Kageyama (US 2001/0044697A1, this reference is from Internation search Report) and further in view of Gong et al. (US 2016/0288905A1) (hereinafter Gong).
Claim 18. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 17, but they fail to teach wherein the unique information includes information designated by a remote ID system mandated by a country regarding flight of an unmanned flying object.
However, Gong et al. (US 2016/0288905A1) teaches, wherein the unique information includes information designated by a remote ID system mandated by a country regarding flight of an unmanned flying object (See Para. [0146]-[0147], [061], “The ID registration database 210 [i.e., ID system mandated by country or government] may maintain identity information for a user 250a, 250b, 250c and a UAV 260a, 260b, 260c, and The authentication center 220 may provide authentication of an identity of a user 250a, 250b, 250c or a UAV 260a, 260b, 260c. The authentication center may optionally authentication an identity of a geo-fencing device and/or remote controller, or any other device that may be involved in the UAV safety system.” Furthermore, see Para. [0164], “A UAV in operation within the safety system may be assigned a UAV ID and a key. The ID and key may be assigned from the ID registration database. The ID and key may be globally unique and may optionally not be copied.”, and Para. [0167], “The authentication system, as provided herein, may comprise an identification registration database configured to store one or more UAV identifiers that uniquely identify UAVs with respect to one another; an authentication center configured to authenticate an identity of a UAV and an identity of a user; and an air control system configured to receive a UAV identifier for the authenticated UAV and a user identifier for the authenticated user and provide a set of flight regulations based on at least one of: the authenticated UAV identifier and the authenticated user identifier.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fines and Kageyama Id registration database to maintain UAV ID at taught by Gong in order to permit/authenticate user to operate UAV, and provide a set of flight regulations based on authenticated UAV identifier and the authenticated user identifier.
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)(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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Imai (US 2022/0185474).
Claim 19. Imai teaches an information processing method performed in an unmanned moving object (See Para. [0018], [0030], [0037], discloses “unmanned aerial vehicle 100 that moves in path that does not collide with another object”), the information processing method comprising: a step of receiving unique information sent out from another moving object for identifying presence and/or a position of the another moving object (See Para. [0030]-[0031], “the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 acquires the location information [construed as unique information] indicating a location of the object and the movement state of the object”, and/or see Para. [0049], “an object information receiving unit receives the object information including the location information of the object from the communication partner's aerial vehicle).
Claim 20. Imai teaches a computer program (See [0081], Para. [0072], “a program/software may be executed by a CPU 1212 so as to cause the computer 1200 to execute the specific operation”, and see Para. [0015], where the computer 1200 functions as a control device 130 of unmanned aerial vehicle 100”) for executing information processing in an unmanned moving object, the computer program for causing a computer to execute: a step of receiving unique information sent out from another moving object for identifying presence and/or a position of the another moving object (See Para. [0030]-[0031], “the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 acquires the location information [construed as unique information] indicating a location of the object and the movement state of the object”, and/or see Para. [0049], “an object information receiving unit receives the object information including the location information of the object from the communication partner's aerial vehicle ).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657