H04W4/46 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
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 April 2026. Non-elected Invention II-VI (claims 19-36) are withdrawn.
Claims 1-36 are pending in which claims 1-18 are examined. Claims 19-36 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claim 1:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine respectively, which is statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim and the other claims recite a system for coordination and management of a a swarm to interoperate with entities, receive and load a mission, announce and request entity as recited in independent claim 1. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the at least one processor”. That is, other than reciting “by the at least one processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the at least one processor” language, the claim encompasses a person a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by the at least one processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements to interoperate, receive and load a mission, and announce are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The requesting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the monitoring and detecting steps), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that optimization of operational efficiency of swarm is extensively documented and is well known [0003]-[0015]. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-18:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-18 are directed to a system. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-18 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-18 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-18 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-18 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies.fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-18 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-18 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-18 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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 1 recites “A system for coordination and management of a
swarm of automated entities” but without claiming any structure directed to the system itself. Claim 1 merely claims some components related to a swarm and provide some steps of how the master and slave of the swarm interact. Claim 1 fails to provide any structure directed to the system itself. As such, it is indefinite what claim 1 is claiming, whether a system or method or hybrid claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites limitation “… each automated entity has specific assets and abilities necessary to interoperate with other entities and perform a mission as a swarm …” is unclear and indefinite. What assets and abilities are considered necessary? The specification does not seem to provide any explanation of what assets and abilities are necessary. Appropriate correction is required.
Limitation “… a swarm management module is instantiated at the master …” as recited in claim 1 and “… a swarm operations module is instantiated at the master …” as recited in claim 3 are unclear and indefinite. “instantiated” is indefinite what it means. The specification does not seem to provide any explanation of what “instantiated” means. For interpretation purpose, “instantiated” is interpreted as usable with people skilled in the art of computer programming. Appropriate correction is required.
Limitation “… a swarm information manager is instantiated at each slave …” as recited in claim 2 and “… a swarm operations module is instantiated at at each swarm slave …” as recited in claim 3 are unclear and indefinite. “instantiated” is indefinite what it means. The specification does not seem to provide any explanation of what “instantiated” means. For interpretation purpose, “instantiated” is interpreted as usable with people skilled in the art of computer programming. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-10 are rejected because features “mission type” and “swarm entity types” are unclear and indefinite what types are. For examination purpose, “mission type” is interpreted as mission, and “swarm entity type” as swarm entity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 15-18 are rejected because “mission planning manager” as recited in claims 1 and 7 to receive and load a mission; “swarm formation manager” as recited in claims 2, and 8-11 to receive a role; “swarm operation module” as recited in claims 3 and 15 to receive and load instructions, to collect; “motion module” as recited in claims 12 and 13 to process received task; “perception module” as recited in claim 12 to process data; “event module” as recited in claim 16 to log status; “hazard module” as recited in claim 17 to log status; “communication module” as recited in claim 18 to send and receive a third set of key data” trigger 35 USC 112 f interpretation. The modules do not seem to correspond to any structure but rather all modules seem to be program modules [0019]. As such, Applicant is required to provide adequate and sufficient disclosure for each program to carry respective steps. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-10, and 18 are rejected because “key data” as recited is unclear and indefinite. What is the objective standard of “key”? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is rejected because “the swarm formation manager” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is rejected because “the swarm operations manager” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-18 are further rejected based on dependency on base claim 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.
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:
“mission planning manager” as recited in claims 1 and 7 to receive and load a mission;
“swarm formation manager” as recited in claims 2, and 8-11 to receive a role;
“swarm operation module” as recited in claims 3 and 15 to receive and load instructions, to collect;
“motion module” as recited in claims 12 and 13 to process received task;
“perception module” as recited in claim 12 to process data;
“event module” as recited in claim 16 to log status;
“hazard module” as recited in claim 17 to log status;
“communication module” as recited in claim 18 to send and receive a third set of key data.
The above modules invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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. There is no corresponding structures to any of the above modules but all the above modules are program modules [0019].
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.
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.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 7-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattingly et al., US 2019/0025818 (A1).
As to claim 1, Mattingly teaches a system for coordination and management of a
swarm of automated entities (Fig. 1 and related text shows 4 drones), wherein the swarm comprises at least a designated master and a slave (“other vehicles (“slave vehicle”) in the fleet may only recognize tasks assigned by the master vehicle”, ¶43), each automated entity includes data processing means, namely at least one processor coupled with at least one memory and adapted to execute instructions that facilitate operations of program modules (“steps shown in FIG. 3 may be performed by a processor-based device, such as one or more of the autonomous vehicle 120”, ¶29), and each automated entity has specific assets and abilities necessary to interoperate with other entities (“task parameters may comprise vehicle requirements and/or preferences for the task such as vehicle hardware capability, vehicle processing capability, vehicle load capacity, vehicle speed, vehicle range, vehicle type (e.g. UAV vs. UGV), onboard sensors, etc.”, ¶31) and perform a mission as a swarm (“a swarm of vehicles, a group of vehicles traveling together, a group of vehicles operating under a shared task agreement”, ¶31), characterized in that a swarm management module is instantiated at the master (Fig. 11 shows nodes includes control circit, memory to carry out software; “nodes comprising autonomous vehicles”, ¶30), the swarm management module comprising a mission planning manager adapted to receive or load a mission and to provide a mission configuration (“master/slave hierarchy for the group. The “master” of the flock can lead the flock on a path and/or assign tasks to other vehicles. In some embodiments, the master/slave rules may be defined in a blockchain shared by the vehicles. In some embodiments, when vehicles join or leave the flock, the leader role of the flock may be renegotiated”, ¶64),
wherein the designated swarm master is configured to announce itself over a
communication module and a communication link, and to request at least one automated entity different from and external to the master to join in the performance of the mission as a swarm slave (Fig. 5 and related text shows second av request to join first av (original master) in a mission).
As to claim 2, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that a swarm formation manager is instantiated at each slave that responds to the request of the master, provided the slave matches a profile derived from the mission configuration (“blockchain may comprise information that allows a vehicle to autonomously decide how it will optimize its actions from store to door and back, whether it is traveling together or apart from other vehicles to deliver a package or perform some other assigned task”, ¶65),
wherein the swarm formation manager of each slave is configured to receive a role in the swarm, to join the swarm and to receive instructions related to swarm-formation of the swarm (“slaves to a group of vehicles may be configured to choose actions that prioritize to the group over themselves”, ¶65).
As to claim 3, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that a swarm operations module is further instantiated at the master, the swarm operations module being configured to receive or load instructions and sets of key data, to coordinate
the execution of operations and tasks derived from the mission configuration and monitor the-performance of the mission by the swarm (“two or more vehicles are working to accomplish one or more missions, blockchain based communication allows the creation and maintenance of a super-entity beyond the sub-entity of individual autonomous vehicles. In some embodiments, individual vehicles that are slaves to a group of vehicles may be configured to choose actions that prioritize to the group over themselves”, ¶65).
As to claim 4, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that a swarm operations module is further instantiated at each swarm slave that responds to the request sent by the master, and is configured to receive or load instructions and sets of key data, to be coordinated in the execution of operations and tasks derived from the mission configuration and to report the-performance of tasks by each swarm slave (“two or more vehicles are working to accomplish one or more missions, blockchain based communication allows the creation and maintenance of a super-entity beyond the sub-entity of individual autonomous vehicles. In some embodiments, individual vehicles that are slaves to a group of vehicles may be configured to choose actions that prioritize to the group over themselves”, ¶65).
As to claim 7, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that the mission planning manager of the master is configured to receive or load a mission plan defined according to pre-defined catalogues (“hand off its mission profile to another vehicle to perform. With the handshake, a vehicle can also be “cloned” with the parameters of another autonomous vehicle”, ¶57),
further to perform an asset inventory based on the received or loaded mission plan, meaning to further request or reject assets (“The parameters can include customer configurations for the vehicle, electronics, lighting, etc”, ¶57), and,
based on the assets inventory performed, to create the mission configuration derived from the mission plan (“a customer may clone the parameters of their personal car onto a rental vehicle. The vehicle parameters may also be copied from preconfigured sets such as celebrities' cars, specialized theme, etc”, ¶57).
As to claim 8, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that the swarm formation manager of the master is configured to generate a first set of key data (¶64), the first set of key data comprising:
swarm identity (“flock”, ¶64),
slave identities (“other vehicles”, ¶64),
mission type (“lead the flock on a path”, ¶64),
swarm entity types (“master/slave hierarchy”, ¶64),
role assignments (“assign tasks to other vehicles’, ¶64),
behavior policy, encoded as a list of rules per event, entity role, and entity type (“ules may be defined in a blockchain shared by the vehicles”, ¶64),
task schedules (“vehicles join or leave the flock, the leader role of the flock may be renegotiated and changed”, ¶64), and
swarm entities trajectories (“deviation or addition from the original mission may be recorded in an additional block or a record in the blockchain”, ¶64).
As to claim 9, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that the swarm formation manager of the master is further configured to generate a second set of key data as input data to the swarm operations module of the master, the second set of key data comprising:
mission type (“lead the flock on a path”, ¶64),
behavior policy (“ules may be defined in a blockchain shared by the vehicles”, ¶64),
task schedules (“vehicles join or leave the flock, the leader role of the flock may be renegotiated and changed”, ¶64), and
swarm entities trajectories (“deviation or addition from the original mission may be recorded in an additional block or a record in the blockchain”, ¶64).
As to claim 10, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that the swarm formation manager of each slave is configured to receive the first set of key data, and to provide the second set of key data comprising:
mission type (“lead the flock on a path”, ¶64),
behavior policy (“ules may be defined in a blockchain shared by the vehicles”, ¶64),
task schedules (“vehicles join or leave the flock, the leader role of the flock may be renegotiated and changed”, ¶64), and
swarm entities trajectories (“deviation or addition from the original mission may be recorded in an additional block or a record in the blockchain”, ¶64).
As to claim 11, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that the swarm formation manager of each swarm slave is configured to provide the second set of key data as input data to the swarm operations module of the respective swarm slave (“Vehicles engaging in a task using sensors may refer to the previous blocks of information to view previous decisions involving other vehicle's sensors”, ¶64).
As to claim 12, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that each swarm entity further comprises a motion module configured to process received task and trajectory data and to provide motion status data as output (“assign tasks to other vehicles. In some embodiments, the master/slave rules may be defined in a blockchain shared by the vehicles. In some embodiments, when vehicles join or leave the flock”, ¶64).
As to claim 13, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that each swarm entity further comprises a perception module configured to process data provided by at least one sensor and to provide object data regarding the presence of entities in the swarm's operational surroundings (“sensor system 227 may comprise one or more sensors for capturing data around the autonomous vehicle 220 to assist in avoiding obstacles and other vehicles while the autonomous vehicle 220 take off, travel, and land”, ¶27).
As to claim 14, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that the motion module of each swarm entity further receives object data related to other entities from the perception module, and object data related to other swarm entities received from the communication module (“sensor system 227 may comprise one or more sensors for capturing data around the autonomous vehicle 220 to assist in avoiding obstacles and other vehicles while the autonomous vehicle 220 take off, travel, and land”, ¶27; “Vehicles engaging in a task using sensors may refer to the previous blocks of information to view previous decisions involving other vehicle's sensors”, ¶64).
As to claim 15, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that the swarm operations module of the master is configured to regularly collect mission status data (“when two or more vehicles are working to accomplish one or more missions, blockchain based communication allows the creation and maintenance of a super-entity beyond the sub-entity of individual autonomous vehicles”, ¶65).
As to claim 16, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that each swarm entity further comprises an event module configured to log status and data and further to regularly perform a health check of own swarm entity and to report own status to the swarm operations module (“while carrying out a task, the vehicles estimates that it does not have enough power reserve to complete the task, the system may proceed to transfer the task at step 350. In some embodiments, the vehicle may continue to perform a task until a trans fer can take place”, ¶35).
As to claim 17, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that each swarm entity further comprises a hazard module configured to log status and hazard data concerning unplanned events, mishaps and issues, and to report such hazard data to the event module (“individual vehicles that are slaves to a group of vehicles may be configured to choose actions that prioritize to the group over themselves. For example, an individual vehicle may avoid collisions when traveling alone, but when traveling as part of a flock, the vehicle may take the impact to protect the greater whole”, ¶65).
As to claim 18, Mattingly teaches the system characterized in that the communication module of the master sends and receives a third set of key data to and from the communication module of each slave, the third set of key data comprising:
swarm identity (“flock”, ¶64),
slave identity (“other vehicles”, ¶64),
mission type (“lead the flock on a path”, ¶64),
entity types (“master/slave hierarchy”, ¶64),
role assignments (“assign tasks to other vehicles’, ¶64),
behavior policy (“ules may be defined in a blockchain shared by the vehicles”, ¶64),
status reports (“task assignment may be recorded in a block”, ¶64)
task schedules (“vehicles join or leave the flock, the leader role of the flock may be renegotiated and changed”, ¶64), and
swarm entities trajectories (“deviation or addition from the original mission may be recorded in an additional block or a record in the blockchain”, ¶64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Mattingly et al., US 2019/0025818 (A1) in view of Rana, US 2024/0160229 (A1).
As to claim 5, Mattingly does not explicitly teach the system characterized in that each swarm entity further comprises a human-machine interface by which manual control instructions, are received from an operator.
However, in the same field of endeaver, Rana teaches an AI-based management of network swarm of robots where “operator may simulate swarming missions through synthetic environments prior to the mission and get a feel of what the sessions may emerge like. The operator may interface with the heterogeneous swarm over a two-dimensional screen with point and click interface, or through virtual and augmented reality interfaces for enhanced and contextual situational awareness”, (Rana: ¶51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the master-slave relationship management of Mattingly to include a human-machine interface by which manual control instructions, are received from an operator as taught by Rana to provide a failsafe system (Mattingly: ¶21).
As to claim 6, Mattingly does not explicitly teach the system characterized in that the master is included in a cloud backend system.
However, in the same field of endeaver, Rana teaches an AI-based management of network swarm of robots where “cloud storage or local storage inside each of the one or more autonomous robots”, (Rana: ¶36). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the master-slave relationship management of Mattingly to include the master in a cloud backend system as taught by Rana to provide a failsafe system (Mattingly: ¶21).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action 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. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on 313-446-4821. 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.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights