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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 11/21/2024 (claimed priority date 05/31/2022):
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, 42-45, 47-49, 51, 55-57 and 60 (for a total of 20 claims) have been examined.
Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18-41, 46, 50, 52-54, 58-59 and 61-64 have been canceled by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “storage,” “processor,” “communication interface,” “[one or more] sensor(s),” “[at least one of]: a light source or a reflective surface” claimed in claim 14, AND the “controller,” “first dispatcher,” “second dispatcher” claimed in claims 55-57 and 60, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following:
“a physical projection reference 102” as described in the specification, Para [0044-0045], at least as published;
“FLS dispatch controller 220 that includes FLS status transceiver 222 and deployment scheduler 224” as described in the specification, Para [0060], at least as published;
“garbage collection controller 250” as described in the specification, Para [0061], at least as published.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
3. 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
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the reference character “220” has been used to designate both “charging stations 220,” in fig. 2, Para [0055-0058], at least as published, and “FLS dispatch controller 220,” in Para [0060], at least as published. Appropriate correction is required.
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the reference character “250” has been used to designate both “hub 250,” in fig. 2, Para [0055], at least as published, and “garbage collection controller 250,” in Para [0061], at least as published. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
1.1 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: “first dispatcher;” “second dispatcher,” in claims 55-56 and 60.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claim 57 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.
1.1.1 The terms “to minimize a flight time;” “to minimize a flight distance;” “minimize a dispatch time,” in claim 57 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimize/minimizing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear up to what degree/level/value/number/percentage, etc., of minimizing the claimed/specified “flight time;” “flight distance;” “dispatch time” should be minimized/reduced/decreased, etc., or how much or how little the claimed/specified “flight time;” “flight distance;” “dispatch time” should be minimized/reduced/decreased, etc., and what these minimizing should be executed/performed/made for, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitations/features “to minimize a flight time;” “to minimize a flight distance;” “minimize a dispatch time,” in claim 57, and not given a patentable weight, and hence claim 57 will be interpreted as the following:
57. The system of claim 56, wherein the controller is further configured to at least one of:
transmit the first and second signals to adjust/regulate/control a flight time of the first subset and the second subset based on the first subset being more visible to a viewer than the second subset,
transmit the first and second signals to adjust/regulate/control a flight distance of the first subset and the second subset, or
adjust/regulate/control a dispatch time of the first subset and the second subset.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1.1 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.
1.1.1 Claims 55-57 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 55 is directed to a system (i.e., machine, manufacture). Therefore, claim 55 is within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 55 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
55. A system comprising:
a first dispatcher configured to dispatch a first set of flying light specks (FLSs);
a second dispatcher configured to dispatch a second set of FLSs;
a controller configured to:
determine an arrangement of FLSs;
transmit a first signal to the first dispatcher to dispatch a first subset of the first set of FLSs to the arrangement; and
transmit a second signal to the second dispatcher to dispatch a second subset of the second set of FLSs to the arrangement.
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. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompass a person (driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data collected (from sensors, other flying drones) and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
55. A system comprising:
a first dispatcher configured to dispatch a first set of flying light specks (FLSs);
a second dispatcher configured to dispatch a second set of FLSs;
a controller configured to:
determine an arrangement of FLSs;
transmit a first signal to the first dispatcher to dispatch a first subset of the first set of FLSs to the arrangement; and
transmit a second signal to the second dispatcher to dispatch a second subset of the second set of FLSs to the arrangement.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “dispatching;” “transmitting,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (controller; processor) to perform the process. In particular, the dispatching, transmitting, determining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of observing, sending, gathering/collecting/obtaining information/data for determining step; transmitting information/data after determining step), and amount to mere pre solution gathering/collecting/obtaining and post solution transmitting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. Lastly, the “system controller, processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle/drone control environment. The vehicle/drone system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining step.
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 (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 55 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle/drone controller, processor to perform the detemining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations mentioned/described/dicussed above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “pre solution observing, sending, gathering/collecting/obtaining and post solution transmitting” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the drone/vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the controller, processor are anything other than conventional computers within a drone/vehicle, the system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 56-57 and 60 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. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in dependent claims 56-57 and 60, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle/drone control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. Therefore, dependent claims 56-57 and 60 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 55. Therefore, claims 55-57 and 60 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 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.
1. Claims 1-2, 6, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick (US20190146501) in view of ARKSEY (US20230177968).
As per claim 1, Schick discloses through the invention (see entire document), a method of controlling one or more flying light speck (FLS) devices (fig. 1-12, abstract, Para [0049, 0051] – teaching creating three-dimensional light show using UAVs equipped with lights, emitting laser lights), the method comprising:
providing at least one FLS system having a plurality of FLS devices at a first location relative to a volume space having a plurality of cells (fig. 1-12, Para [0034-0035, 0049, 0051, 0054-0055, 0062, 0064, 0071, 0115, 0117, 0151] – teaching analyzing the image data to determine a locational relationship between the first UAV and the second UAV; instructing first unmanned aerial vehicle to navigate to an adjusted location);
dispensing, by a dispenser, at least one of the FLS devices from the FLS system to at least one of the plurality of cells within the volume space (fig. 3, 8-10, Para [0043-0044, 0048-0055, 0057, 0062, 0064-0065, 0067, 0076, 0115, 0117] – teaching first UAV that travels according to a flight plan, which may include multiple points of destination within the sky during the context of a light show, and the one or more processors that control the one or more lasers to emit light at predetermined times for the purpose of creating images, words, or graphics within the sky).
Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention selecting, based on a change in operating state of the at least one dispensed FLS device, at least one of the dispensed FLS devices; retrieving, by a garbage collector, at least one of the selected FLS devices from the volume space; and delivering, by the garbage collector, the retrieved FLS device to the system upon an indication of failure of the at least one of the selected FLS devices.
However, ARKSEY discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0035-0037, 0050, 0146] – teaching when using a single traditional drone fails, the entire mission that fails or a new drone must be found and dispatched to complete the mission; a resilient swarm that simplifies the higher level path planning system by automatically initiating failover and fault tolerance; a Level 2 resilient swarm configuration that would have a single drone ready to take over if any one drone fails; a Level 3 resilient swarm configuration that would have two drones ready to take over; a resilient swarm that can automatically hide faults and problems from the system; the resilient swarm that also allows hot spares and rebuilding of resilient swarms; if a camera drone fails, another drone that may launch from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm and take some time to move and replace the failed drone; the resilient swarm that may then be rebuilt when it arrives with the other drones and properly configures itself into the resilient swarm; other specialized resilient swarms such as a lighting resilient swarm which may illuminate; resilient swarm that may have a lighting drone; a resilient swarm of imaging drones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARKSEY, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to use a resilient swarm to improve reliability; to launch another drone from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm to replace a failed drone, if the drone fails (see entire ARKSEY document, particularly Para [0035]).
As per claim 2, Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention change in operating state comprising a failure of at least one component of the further FLS device or a discharge of a battery of the further FLS device below a predetermined threshold.
However, ARKSEY discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0065, 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARKSEY, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to use a resilient swarm to improve reliability; to launch another drone from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm to replace a failed drone, if the drone fails (see entire ARKSEY document, particularly Para [0035]).
Claim 3 canceled.
Claim 5 canceled.
As per claim 6, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) plurality of cells defined by a logical relationship between the plurality of FLS device, wherein the logical relationship includes a downwash of the plurality of FLS devices (fig. 10, Para [0051] – teaching 3D image of a cat with plurality of FLS devices performing different brightness, resolution with a downwash at the cat’s head.
Claims 7-8 canceled.
Claims 10-11 canceled.
As per claim 12, Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention dispensing a second FLS device from the FLS system to replace the retrieved FLS device, wherein the second FLS device occupies a standby position within the volume space when the change in operating state occurs.
However, ARKSEY discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0065, 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARKSEY, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to use a resilient swarm to improve reliability; to launch another drone from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm to replace a failed drone, if the drone fails (see entire ARKSEY document, particularly Para [0035]).
Claim 13 canceled.
As per claim 14, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) each of the plurality of FLS devices that comprises a storage, a processor, a communication interface, one or more sensors and at least one of: a light source or a reflective surface (fig. 1, 5-7, Para [0024-0026, 0034]).
Claims 15-16 canceled.
As per claim 17, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) each respective FLS device of the plurality of FLS devices that can localize a position of the respective FLS device relative to one or more other FLS devices of the plurality of FLS devices using the one or more sensors, wherein the method further comprises: transmitting a message to the plurality of FLS devices to synchronize clocks of the plurality of FLS devices with a predetermined error, wherein an accuracy of the localization is based on the predetermined error (Para [0047, 0062, 0065-0066] – teaching transmitting adjustment instruction from the second UAV to the first UAV, whether directly, or using an intermediary device; UAVs to synchronize with a plurality of global positioning system satellites, thereby obtaining an absolute position according to the global positioning system; preprogrammed light show coordinates used alongside information obtained from the global positioning system to achieve or approximate desired positions for production or termination of laser light).
Claims 18-41 canceled.
2. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schick and ARKSEY, further in view of ISBERG (US20210300552).
As per claim 4, Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention (see entire document) volume space that comprises a cuboid shaped volume space, and wherein each of the plurality of cells comprises a cuboid portion of the volume space.
However, ISBERG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 13, Para [0025, 0145-0152, 0168-0173] – teaching computing individualized cost matrices (ICMi) for the UAVs, the individualized cost matrices (ICMi) defining cost values for directing a respective UAV to the distributed sub-regions (122) (shaped as cuboids).
Additionally, the Examiner finds that ISBERG reference is an Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that both Applicant and ISBERG teach on plurality of cube-shaped cells in flying drones zones, locations relative to a volume space having a plurality of cells.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the ISBERG reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ISBERG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a technique of reducing the power consumption and/or increasing the range of UAVs used for delivering goods (see entire ISBERG document, particularly Para [0007]); to provide a technique of reducing the transit time of UAVs from launch to delivery (see entire ISBERG document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 9, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) at least one FLS system that comprises one of: providing one or more of a plurality of FLS systems at corresponding one or more different locations adjacent to the volume space, providing one or more of a plurality of FLS systems at corresponding one or more different locations within the volume space, or providing one or more of a plurality of FLS systems at one or more respective corners of the volume space (fig. 8-10, Para [0029-0031, 0049, 0051] – teaching plural light UAV at different corresponding locations, corners of 3D imaging).
Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention volume space that comprises a cuboid volume space.
However, ISBERG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 13, Para [0025, 0145-0152, 0168-0173].
Additionally, the Examiner finds that ISBERG reference is an Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that both Applicant and ISBERG teach on plurality of cube-shaped cells in flying drones zones, locations relative to a volume space having a plurality of cells.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the ISBERG reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ISBERG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a technique of reducing the power consumption and/or increasing the range of UAVs used for delivering goods (see entire ISBERG document, particularly Para [0007]); to provide a technique of reducing the transit time of UAVs from launch to delivery (see entire ISBERG document, particularly Para [0009]).
3. Claims 42-44, 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick in view of Yang (US20210063765).
Claim 42 recites limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in claim 1.
Hence, as applied to the claim 1 rejections above, Schick discloses through the invention (see entire document), a method comprising: determining a first arrangement of a plurality of flying light specks (FLSs), the first arrangement corresponding to a first three-dimensional (3D) image; determining a second arrangement of the plurality of FLSs, the second arrangement corresponding to a second three-dimensional (3D) image; determining a plurality of paths through a 3D volume between the first arrangement and the second arrangement; and transmitting the plurality of paths to the plurality of FLSs to cause the plurality of FLSs to transition from the first arrangement corresponding to the first 3D image to the second arrangement corresponding to the second 3D image (fig. 1-12, abstract, Para [0034-0035, 0043-0044, 0048-0055, 0057, 0062, 0064-0065, 0067, 0071, 0076, 0115, 0117, 0151]).
Schick, does not explicitly disclose through the invention rendering images at a predetermined frequency to generate an animated sequence of images, wherein the predetermined frequency is equal to or greater than 24 images per second.
However, Yang discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0006, 0020, 0040], claims 1, 9 – teaching displaying an image and generating a light beam according to image data of the displayed image, wherein the light beam includes a first polarized light and a second polarized light alternately displayed at a preset frequency; image source configured to alternately form the first polarized light and the second polarized light at a frequency greater than or equal to 48 frames per second, so that the display frequencies of the coupled-out first sub-image and the second sub-image are greater than or equal to 24 frames per second.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Yang reference is an Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that both Applicant and Yang teach on displaying/presenting images in certain frequencies of 24 images/frames per second.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the Yang reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yang, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to display an image at a preset frequency and correspondingly generate a first polarized light and a second polarized light; to alternately couple out a first sub-image and a second sub-image in a preset area; wherein the first and second sub-images alternately displayed, and fused superimposed in human eyes due to a persistence of vision, thereby increasing a field of view and an image resolution (see entire Yang document, particularly abstract).
As per claim 43, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining a location in the first arrangement of a first FLS of the plurality of FLSs; determining a location in the second arrangement of the first FLS; and determining a shortest path between the location in the first arrangement and the location in the second arrangement of the first FLS (Para [0034, 0037, 0054-0055] – teaching controlling flight or any other operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 including but not limited to navigation, image analysis, location calculation; providing a flight path based at least on an actual position of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 and a desired target position for the unmanned aerial vehicle 100; modifying the flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 based on data obtained from the position detection system; controlling the aerial movement of the second UAV including, but not limited to,…, location or locations within the light show, position or positions within the light show, and landing).
As per claim 44, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) second arrangement that includes a greater number of FLSs than the first arrangement, and wherein determining the plurality of flight paths comprises: identifying an additional FLS; and determining a flight path from a current location of the additional FLS to the second arrangement (Para [0065] – teaching one or more processors that may cause the first UAV to adjust its position or location to redirect the laser toward the second UAV).
As per claim 49, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining the plurality of flight paths that comprises: comparing coordinates of the second arrangement to coordinates of the first arrangement by: generating an index structure on the coordinates of the first arrangement; and probing the index structure using the coordinates of the second arrangement; identifying a subset of the plurality of FLSs whose coordinates in the second arrangement do not match their coordinates in the first arrangement; and determining flight paths for the subset of the plurality of FLSs (Para [0039, 0062, 0068]).
Claim 50 canceled.
As per claim 51, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) identifying a first unit of a grid corresponding to the first arrangement; comparing coordinates of FLSs in the first unit of the grid in the first arrangement with coordinates of the FLSs in the first unit of the grid in the second arrangement; identifying a subset of the FLSs in the first unit of the grid whose coordinates in the second arrangement do not match their coordinates in the first arrangement, wherein the coordinates of the subset of the FLSs in the first unit of the grid in the second arrangement are within the first unit of the grid; and determining flight paths for the subset of FLSs in the first unit of the grid (fig. 1-12, abstract, Para [0034-0035, 0039, 0043-0044, 0048-0055, 0057, 0062, 0064-0065, 0067-0068, 0071, 0076, 0115, 0117, 0151]).
Claims 52-54 canceled.
4. Claims 45 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schick and Yang, further in view of ARKSEY.
As per claim 45, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) second arrangement that includes a lower number of FLSs than the first arrangement, and wherein determining the plurality of flight paths comprises: identifying a first FLS of the plurality of FLSs; and determining a flight path for the first FLS from the first arrangement to a location separate from the second arrangement, wherein the flight path for the first FLS from the first arrangement to a location separate from the second arrangement avoids a view of a user; determining that the first FLS is not in a third arrangement (fig. 3, 10, Para [0043-0044, 0049-0052, 0054, 0057] – teaching possibility to create three dimensional shapes with greater clarity and using a fewer number of UAVs; the minimum number of UAVs required is the number of vertices for any given shape or design).
Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention determining a flight path for the first FLS from the location separate from the second arrangement to a hangar or charging station.
However, ARKSEY discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0035-0037, 0050, 0146].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARKSEY, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to use a resilient swarm to improve reliability; to launch another drone from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm to replace a failed drone, if the drone fails (see entire ARKSEY document, particularly Para [0035]).
Claim 46 canceled.
As per claim 47, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining that the first FLS is not in a third arrangement (fig. 3, 10, Para [0043-0044, 0049-0052, 0054, 0057]).
Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention (see entire document) determining a flight path for the first FLS from the location separate from the second arrangement to a hangar or charging station.
However, ARKSEY discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0035-0037, 0050, 0146].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARKSEY, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to use a resilient swarm to improve reliability; to launch another drone from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm to replace a failed drone, if the drone fails (see entire ARKSEY document, particularly Para [0035]).
As per claim 48, Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention identifying an issue with a second FLS of the plurality of FLSs; and determining a flight path for the first FLS to replace the second FLS in the second arrangement.
However, ARKSEY discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0035-0037, 0050, 0146].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARKSEY, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to use a resilient swarm to improve reliability; to launch another drone from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm to replace a failed drone, if the drone fails (see entire ARKSEY document, particularly Para [0035]).
5. Claims 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick.
Claim 55 recites limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in claims 1 and 42.
Hence, as applied to the claims 1 and 42 rejections above, Schick discloses through the invention (see entire document), system comprising: a first dispatcher configured to dispatch a first set of flying light specks (FLSs); a second dispatcher configured to dispatch a second set of FLSs; a controller configured to: determine an arrangement of FLSs; transmit a first signal to the first dispatcher to dispatch a first subset of the first set of FLSs to the arrangement; and transmit a second signal to the second dispatcher to dispatch a second subset of the second set of FLSs to the arrangement (fig. 1-12, abstract, Para [0034-0035, 0043-0044, 0048-0055, 0057, 0062, 0064-0065, 0067, 0071, 0076, 0115, 0117, 0151]).
Schick does not explicitly disclose thorough the invention, or is missing a controller configured to transmit first/second signal to first/second dispatcher.
However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that a controller/’processor may be used as a kind of entity that allows handling data, signals, etc., that may be handled according to one or more specific functions executed by the processor or controller..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schick teaching such that it comprises controller configured to transmit first/second signal to first/second dispatcher. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of Schick. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create a visual image within a UAV light show context with significantly improved graphical quality (see entire Schick document, particularly Para [0044]).
As per claim 56, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) controller further configured to transmit the first and second signals such that a first portion of the arrangement comprises the first subset and a second portion of the arrangement comprises the second subset, wherein the first portion is nearer to the first dispatcher than the second dispatcher and the second portion is nearer to the second dispatcher than the first dispatcher (fig. 1-12, abstract, Para [0034-0035, 0043-0044, 0048-0055, 0057, 0062, 0064-0065, 0067, 0071, 0076, 0115, 0117, 0151]).
Claims 58-59 canceled.
6. Claims 57 and 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick further in view of ARKSEY.
As per claim 57, Schick further discloses through the invention (see entire document) controller further configured to at least one of: transmit the first and second signals to minimize a flight time of the first subset and the second subset based on the first subset being more visible to a viewer than the second subset, transmit the first and second signals to minimize a flight distance of the first subset and the second subset (fig. 1-12, abstract, Para [0034-0035, 0039, 0043-0044, 0048-0055, 0057, 0062, 0064-0065, 0067-0068, 0071, 0076, 0115, 0117, 0151]).
Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention minimizing a dispatch time of the first subset and the second subset.
However, ARKSEY discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0010-0013, 0035, 0264].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARKSEY, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to use a resilient swarm to improve reliability; to launch another drone from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm to replace a failed drone, if the drone fails (see entire ARKSEY document, particularly Para [0035]).
As per claim 60, Schick does not explicitly disclose through the invention controller configured to: identify a dispatch rate for the first dispatcher; identify a dispatch rate for the second dispatcher; and determine the first subset and the second subset based on the dispatch rates for the first and second dispatchers.
However, ARKSEY discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0010-0013, 0035, 0264].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Schick by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARKSEY, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to use a resilient swarm to improve reliability; to launch another drone from the hive or be detached from another resilient swarm to replace a failed drone, if the drone fails (see entire ARKSEY document, particularly Para [0035]).
Claims 61-64 canceled.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Arango (US20190138031) – (see entire Arango document, particularly abstract – teaching A system and method of displaying graphic information including a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles that together form a display screen; light elements provided on each vehicle; a computer that wirelessly connects to and controls the vehicles and is activated to deploy the vehicles and arrange them in a pattern in the air; the light elements that become pixels on the display screen; the light elements that may be on opposing regions of the unmanned aerial vehicles, thereby making it possible to view the display screen from more than one direction; wireless signals transmitted from the computer to the light elements; light elements selectively switched on and off in a manner that causes the light emitted therefrom to form textual or graphic images on one side and/or the other side of the display screen; when not in use, the vehicles stored in a storage facility having charging stations).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662