DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 24, 28, 31, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,720,068. Although the independent claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the independent claims 1, 10, and 18 of US10,720,068 do not explicitly disclose the use of one or more routing algorithms for selecting a UAV and determining a route, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one or more routing algorithms – as given their broadest reasonable interpretation – were necessarily used for selecting a UAV and determining a route for the UAV to travel. Claims 24 and 31 of the presently filed claims do not add limitations outside the scope of the independent claims of US10,720,068 as these independent claims state that the payload is transported “to a second ground station at the destination location”.
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 26, 33, and 39 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 26, 33, and 39 recite the limitation "the package". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no package was introduced previously before the use of the term “the package” in these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 24-28, 31-35, and 38-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al. (JP 2005263112 A) in view of Goossen et al. (US 20120143482 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sumiya teaches a computer implemented method for facilitating payload transportation using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
at an electronic device, receiving payload information regarding a payload to be transported ([0033]);
determining, based on the one or more routing algorithms, a route for the determined UAV ([0034-0035], the flight route is determined);
and transmitting the route to the UAV directing the UAV to transport the payload to a destination location ([0034-0035], the location information is input to the UAV).
Sumiya only discloses one UAV as part of its teachings for transporting the payload, and does not teach selecting, based on one or more routing algorithms, a UAV from a plurality of UAVs.
In the field of UAV transportation systems, Goossen discloses the use of multiple UAVs, and as part of its operations, teaches that the multiple UAVs are configured with specific flight planning algorithms for different operations depending on the UAV. ([0049], [0077], and [0081]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Sumiya with the use of multiple UAVs, thereby selecting a UAV from the plurality of UAVs based on the flight path generated by the one or more routing algorithms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the effective date of filing to modify Sumiya based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to incorporate the use of multiple UAVs into the invention of Sumiya, thereby allowing for multiple transportation operations to occur at the same time.
Regarding claim 24, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location comprises a ground station ([0043], the UAV flies to and from a base station and a delivery location).
Regarding claim 25, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location is configured to exchange packages with the UAV ([0027], transported goods are exchanged into and out of the storage case as transported by the UAV).
Regarding claim 26, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location includes an opening for the package to pass into and/or from an interior of a building ([0027], the destination includes a vertical opening so that the package can be repelled to the ground).
Regarding claim 27, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location includes an opening for at least a portion of the UAV to pass into and/or from an interior of a building ([0027], the destination includes a vertical opening so that the lifting means and storage case of the UAV can be repelled to the ground).
Regarding claim 28, Sumiya teaches a computer system for facilitating payload transportation using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
one or more processors ([0020]); and
memory ([0020]) and programs including instructions for:
receiving payload information regarding a payload to be transported ([0033]);
determining, based on the one or more routing algorithms, a route for the determined UAV ([0034-0035], the flight route is determined);
and transmitting the route to the UAV directing the UAV to transport the payload to a destination location ([0034-0035], the location information is input to the UAV).
Sumiya teaches that such operations are performed by control means, and while the storage means do not explicitly store the programs upon which the various processors of the control means perform the operations disclosed, it is implicit that such programs are stored by the invention as a processor and control means require programs and instructions to be able to perform their configured operations.
Sumiya only discloses one UAV as part of its teachings for transporting the payload, and does not teach selecting, based on one or more routing algorithms, a UAV from a plurality of UAVs.
In the field of UAV transportation systems, Goossen discloses the use of multiple UAVs, and as part of its operations, teaches that the multiple UAVs are configured with specific flight planning algorithms for different operations depending on the UAV. ([0049], [0077], and [0081]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Sumiya with the use of multiple UAVs, thereby selecting a UAV from the plurality of UAVs based on the flight path generated by the one or more routing algorithms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the effective date of filing to modify Sumiya based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to incorporate the use of multiple UAVs into the invention of Sumiya, thereby allowing for multiple transportation operations to occur at the same time.
Regarding claim 31, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location comprises a ground station ([0043], the UAV flies to and from a base station and a delivery location).
Regarding claim 32, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location is configured to exchange packages with the UAV ([0027], transported goods are exchanged into and out of the storage case as transported by the UAV).
Regarding claim 33, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location includes an opening for the package to pass into and/or from an interior of a building ([0027], the destination includes a vertical opening so that the package can be repelled to the ground).
Regarding claim 34, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location includes an opening for at least a portion of the UAV to pass into and/or from an interior of a building ([0027], the destination includes a vertical opening so that the lifting means and storage case of the UAV can be repelled to the ground).
Regarding claim 35, Sumiya teaches a processor ([0020]) that performs programs comprising instructions for:
receiving payload information regarding a payload to be transported ([0033]);
determining, based on the one or more routing algorithms, a route for the determined UAV ([0034-0035], the flight route is determined);
and transmitting the route to the UAV directing the UAV to transport the payload to a destination location ([0034-0035], the location information is input to the UAV).
Sumiya teaches that such operations are performed by control means, and while Sumiya does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising the one or more programs performed, such a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is implicit to the disclosure of Sumiya as programs are necessarily stored so that they can be performed by a processor or other control means. Therefore, such a storage medium necessarily flows from the disclosure of Sumiya as it would be nonfunctional to have a control means, e.g. a processor, that performs operations without also having the program instructions for said operations be stored so that the processor can execute them.
Sumiya only discloses one UAV as part of its teachings for transporting the payload, and does not teach selecting, based on one or more routing algorithms, a UAV from a plurality of UAVs.
In the field of UAV transportation systems, Goossen discloses the use of multiple UAVs, and as part of its operations, teaches that the multiple UAVs are configured with specific flight planning algorithms for different operations depending on the UAV. ([0049], [0077], and [0081]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Sumiya with the use of multiple UAVs, thereby selecting a UAV from the plurality of UAVs based on the flight path generated by the one or more routing algorithms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the effective date of filing to modify Sumiya based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to incorporate the use of multiple UAVs into the invention of Sumiya, thereby allowing for multiple transportation operations to occur at the same time.
Regarding claim 38, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location is configured to exchange packages with the UAV ([0027], transported goods are exchanged into and out of the storage case as transported by the UAV).
Regarding claim 39, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location includes an opening for the package to pass into and/or from an interior of a building ([0027], the destination includes a vertical opening so that the package can be repelled to the ground).
Regarding claim 40, Sumiya further teaches:
wherein the destination location includes an opening for at least a portion of the UAV to pass into and/or from an interior of a building ([0027], the destination includes a vertical opening so that the lifting means and storage case of the UAV can be repelled to the ground).
Claims 22, 29, and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumiya in view of Goossen as applied to claims 21, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of Panella (Journal ‘Artificial Intelligence Methodologies Applicable to Support the Decision-Making Capability on Board Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’, publicly published in Bio-inspired, Learning and Intelligent Systems for Security, dated 2008).
Regarding claim 22, Sumiya does not teach that the one or more routing algorithms comprise an artificial intelligence algorithm.
In the field of decision making and routing algorithms for UAVs, Panella discloses the benefits of enhancing the routing algorithms for a UAV with autonomous capabilities by incorporating AI algorithms (Page 114, Cols. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the routing algorithms of Sumiya with the use of AI algorithms based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Panella, of allowing the machines and algorithms to adaptively "learn from the environment" to allow them to be able to react to unforeseen events and generate routes accordingly (Page 113, Col. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Sumiya does not teach that the one or more routing algorithms comprise an artificial intelligence algorithm.
In the field of decision making and routing algorithms for UAVs, Panella discloses the benefits of enhancing the routing algorithms for a UAV with autonomous capabilities by incorporating AI algorithms (Page 114, Cols. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the routing algorithms of Sumiya with the use of AI algorithms based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Panella, of allowing the machines and algorithms to adaptively "learn from the environment" to allow them to be able to react to unforeseen events and generate routes accordingly (Page 113, Col. 2).
Regarding claim 36, Sumiya does not teach that the one or more routing algorithms comprise an artificial intelligence algorithm.
In the field of decision making and routing algorithms for UAVs, Panella discloses the benefits of enhancing the routing algorithms for a UAV with autonomous capabilities by incorporating AI algorithms (Page 114, Cols. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the routing algorithms of Sumiya with the use of AI algorithms based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Panella, of allowing the machines and algorithms to adaptively "learn from the environment" to allow them to be able to react to unforeseen events and generate routes accordingly (Page 113, Col. 2).
Claims 23, 30, and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumiya in view of Goossen as applied to claims 21, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of McAndrew et al. (US 20110035149 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Sumiya does not teach that the one or more routing algorithms comprises packet routing logic.
In the field of navigation algorithms for UAVs, McAndrew teaches incorporating packet routing logic functionality into a flight network structure for a flight management and routing algorithms ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the effective date of filing to modify the routing algorithms of Sumiya to use packet routing logic based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by McAndrew, of providing secure and critical path routing for flight management software of a UAV ([0043])
Regarding claim 30, Sumiya does not teach that the one or more routing algorithms comprises packet routing logic.
In the field of navigation algorithms for UAVs, McAndrew teaches incorporating packet routing logic functionality into a flight network structure for a flight management and routing algorithms ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the effective date of filing to modify the routing algorithms of Sumiya to use packet routing logic based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by McAndrew, of providing secure and critical path routing for flight management software of a UAV ([0043]).
Regarding claim 37, Sumiya does not teach that the one or more routing algorithms comprises packet routing logic.
In the field of navigation algorithms for UAVs, McAndrew teaches incorporating packet routing logic functionality into a flight network structure for a flight management and routing algorithms ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the effective date of filing to modify the routing algorithms of Sumiya to use packet routing logic based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by McAndrew, of providing secure and critical path routing for flight management software of a UAV ([0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACK R. BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663