DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 of application 18/873,403, filed on 10-December-2024, are presented for examination. The IDS received on the same date has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
2.1 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
2.2 Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), for reciting limitations for which there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim, specifically:
In claims 8 and 13, the term “each risk factor” lacks antecedent basis, because it is interpreted as equivalent to “the risk factor”.
Claim 8: wherein the risk detection unit detects, on a basis of the first flying object information, at least one of information that indicates spatial distribution of risks for each risk factor or information that indicates spatial distribution of integrated risks obtained by integrating the risks for each risk factor.
Claim 13: wherein the safety information includes information that indicates spatial distribution of risks for each risk factor, and the operation control unit controls a flight operation of the second flying object on a basis of the spatial distribution of risks for each risk factor.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
3.1 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)(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.
3.2 Claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinoshita et al, WO 2019/159420, listed on the 10-December-2024 IDS (see attached translation).
3.3 Kinoshita discloses:
Claims 1 and 20: An information processing apparatus [¶0001], comprising:
an output control unit that controls an output of safety information that is information based on first flying object information including information relating to a surrounding environment of one or more first flying objects detected by the one or more first flying objects [0021 (collecting weather information); 0023 (a first drone may acquire weather and position information); 0027 (bad weather information can be collected, indicating a safety hazard, and used to redirect the drone); 0037; 0066], the safety information being information relating to safety of a flight area in which a second flying object flies [0007; 0023 (As shown in Fig. 5, weather and position data collected by a first drone can be wirelessly communicated to a second drone in relative proximity to the position); 0028 (the bad weather information collected the first drone can be communicated to another drone to enable the second drone to avoid the hazardous weather position); 0067 (poor weather detected by a first drone is passed to a second drone to update a flight route that avoids the weather); 0074-0075 (information is passed along between the drones to avoid drone collisions, bad weather and congestion, thereby increasing the safety and stability of the drone flights)].
Claim 2: wherein the safety information includes information that indicates spatial distribution of risks in the flight area detected on a basis of the first flying object information [0074-0075 (information is passed along between the drones to avoid drone collisions, bad weather and congestion, thereby increasing the safety and stability of the drone flights)].
Claim 5: wherein the safety information includes at least one of information that indicates spatial distribution of risks for each risk factor or information that indicates spatial distribution of integrated risks obtained by integrating the risks for each risk factor [0028 (the bad weather information collected the first drone can be communicated to another drone to enable the second drone to avoid the hazardous weather position); 0067 (poor weather detected by a first drone is passed to a second drone to update a flight route that avoids the weather); 0074-0075 (information is passed along between the drones to avoid drone collisions, bad weather and congestion, thereby increasing the safety and stability of the drone flights)].
Claim 6: wherein the risk factor includes at least one of a geomagnetic state, a wind state [0020 (wind meter)], illuminance, a GNSS signal reception state, or a radio wave state of wireless communication.
Claim 7: further comprising a risk detection unit that detects the spatial distribution of risks on a basis of the first flying object information [0021; 0023; 0027; 0037; 0066].
Claim 8: wherein the risk detection unit detects, on a basis of the first flying object information, at least one of information that indicates spatial distribution of risks for each risk factor [0020 (wind meter); 0021; 0023; 0027; 0037; 0066] or information that indicates spatial distribution of integrated risks obtained by integrating the risks for each risk factor.
Claim 11: wherein the risk detection unit detects the spatial distribution of risks further on a basis of second flying object information that includes information relating to a surrounding environment of the second flying object detected by the second flying object [0007; 0023 (As shown in Fig. 5, weather and position data collected by a first drone can be wirelessly communicated to a second drone in relative proximity to the position); 0028 (the bad weather information collected the first drone can be communicated to another drone to enable the second drone to avoid the hazardous weather position); 0067 (poor weather detected by a first drone is passed to a second drone to update a flight route that avoids the weather); 0074-0075 (information is passed along between the drones to avoid drone collisions, bad weather and congestion, thereby increasing the safety and stability of the drone flights)].
Claim 12: further comprising an operation control unit that controls a flight operation of the second flying object on a basis of the spatial distribution of risks [0029; 0047; 0059].
Claim 13: wherein the safety information includes information that indicates spatial distribution of risks for each risk factor, and the operation control unit controls a flight operation of the second flying object on a basis of the spatial distribution of risks for each risk factor [0029; 0047; 0059].
Claim 14: wherein the safety information includes information that indicates a risk factor in the flight area detected on a basis of the first flying object information [0007; 0023; 0028; 0067; 0074-0075].
Claim 15: wherein the safety information further includes information relating to a countermeasure against the risk factor [0074-0075 (avoiding….safely flying….autonomously avoiding)].
Claim 16: further comprising an operation control unit that controls a flight operation of the second flying object on a basis of the risk factor in the flight area [0029; 0047; 0059].
Claim 17: wherein the information relating to a surrounding environment of one or more first
flying objects includes at least one of a geomagnetic state, a wind state [0020 (wind meter)], illuminance, a GNSS signal reception state, or a radio wave state of wireless communication around the one or more first flying objects.
Claim 18: wherein the first flying object information further includes at least one of information relating to a state of the first flying object or information relating to the first flying object [0007; 0023; 0028; 0067; 0074-0075].
Claim 19: wherein the safety information is further based on second flying object information including information relating to a surrounding environment of the second flying object detected by the second flying object [0007; 0023; 0028; 0067; 0074-0075].
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
4.1 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering the objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
4.2 Claims 3, 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al (K), WO 2019/159420, in view of PCT/EP/2021/074504. For simplicity, in regard to the PCT, the Examiner will refer to corresponding English Language Equivalent document, Terra et al (T), USP Publication 2025/0005450.
4.3 Kinoshita discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claims 3, 4, 9 and 10. However, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, Terra describes these features, including:
Claim 3: wherein the safety information includes an image obtained by superimposing the information that indicates spatial distribution of risks on a map [K:0055 (a weather map showing updates of the movement path); 0059 (a weather map is generated from the acquired weather information)] [T:0024 (Where the environment is an autonomous agent operation area, the safety information may comprise, for example, information from UAVs or UAV controllers that may be used to calculate the risk of a collision between a UAV and an obstacle (another UAV, a building, a geographical feature, a restricted area, and so on). Typically, the safety information is sensory information that may be analysed to derive a risk value for the state of the environment (see step S102); this sensory information may be received directly from sensors and/or via an intermediary
apparatus that collates sensor readings and transmits the sensor readings to the ML agent.); ].
Claim 4: wherein the safety information includes an image obtained by superimposing the information that indicates spatial distribution of risks on an image of surroundings of the second flying object [T:0042-0046 (In image segmentation, obstacles are identified in captured images (the object may be said to occupy a segment of the image) using a suitable ML model such as a trained deep neural network model (DNN) to determine what action need to be taken by the robot in order to maintain the safety of the operation. A safety violation may be said to occur if a robot collides with another object (such as humans, other robots, or any other object)(0042).)].
Claim 9: further comprising a risk prediction unit that predicts spatial distribution of future risks on a basis of a detection result of the spatial distribution of risks [T:0033-0038 (The state prediction (which may have been modified following feature adaptation) may then subsequently be used to generate one or more suggested actions to be performed on the environment…Where the environment is an autonomous agent operation area, the suggested actions may comprise prohibiting entry to UAVs not already in the area, rerouting UAVs already in the area, defining priority zones, and so on. (0037))].
Claim 10: wherein the safety information includes information that indicates transition of the risks in the flight area from a past to a future [T:0033 (The state prediction is a prediction of the state of the environment at some point in time after that represented by the processed information
about the state of the environment.)].
4.4 Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mobile body operation management system as disclosed by Kinoshita, with the method for dynamically selecting an action to be taken in an environment as described by Terra, because selecting an ML model to be used dynamically based on at least a determined risk value, the method may allow computing resources to be saved and power consumption to be reduced (when a less complex, less resource and power intensive model is selected), while maintaining safety by allowing a more complex model to be selected when required [T:0006], with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
Prior Art
5. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of document A on the attached
PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Document A defines a document of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one or more other such documents, such combination being obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Prior Art of Record
6. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response Guidelines
7.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
7.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (571) 273-8300
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661
Prosecution Insights