DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-6 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 12/17/24.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 recite the claim element “external apparatus” which is defined in the Specification ¶311 as “base unit 10, aircraft parking apron 20 and other drone 30′”.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 recite the claim element “communication apparatus” which is defined in the Specification ¶74 as “power source/communication equipment 10, aircraft parking apron 20, and underwater drone 30”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2019/0265705).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Zhang discloses an autonomous movable object signal transmission based navigation system including a moving body/ movement control method, comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein the processor wirelessly performs communication with an external apparatus (¶131 – external device/terminal corresponding to the recited external apparatus);
acquires a communication connection relationship of a communication network including the external apparatus and another communication apparatus, by the communication with the external apparatus (¶81-88 and Fig. 6 – signal transmission operating status corresponding to the recited communication connection relationship of a communication network between the moving body and multiple external apparatuses); and
determines, based on the communication connection relationship, a first direction, in which the moving body moves, and causes the moving body to move in the first direction (¶87-88 and Fig. 6 – element 606 determining a first flight path corresponding to the recited determining a first direction to which the moving body moves based on the communication connection relationship).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further discloses wherein in a case where the communication connection relationship indicates that no communication apparatus wirelessly connected to the other communication apparatus is present, the processor determines that the first direction is a direction of the other communication apparatus (¶83-84 – after failing to transmit data to a control device for a period of time, corresponding to the recited first index value being equal to or less than the first threshold the UAV can backtrack to a point where wireless transmission strength was strong, a region where data transmission rate was above a threshold corresponding to the recited stopping forward progress at a location where an abnormal signal transmission condition was detected corresponding to the recited index value is equal to or less than the first threshold).
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 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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2019/0265705), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Dietrich et al. (US 2005/0208952).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses wherein in a case where the communication connection relationship indicates that the other communication apparatus is present at an end of the communication network (¶87-88 and Fig. 6 – UAV searches among “safe” points for determining a first direction given that the “safe” points is classification for locations which are above a threshold data transmission rate corresponding to the recited communication is present).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose identifying the direction of a second communication apparatus, however, Dietrich discloses a signal strength based position identification system including the processor determines that the first direction is a direction of the other communication apparatus (¶36-40 – wireless node location module utilizes signal strength data received from different wireless nodes to determines the locations of the infrastructure radio transceivers corresponding to the recited communication apparatuses which are mapped onto a coverage map indicating the relative directions of the communications apparatus)
The combination of the autonomous movable object signal transmission based navigation system of Zhang with the wireless node location identification and mapping of Dietrich fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous movable object signal transmission based navigation system of Zhang with the wireless node location identification and mapping of Dietrich in order to improve signal based positioning detection for both communications infrastructure and mobile devices (Dietrich - ¶12-13).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further discloses wherein the processor acquires an index value indicating a transmission path characteristic between the moving body and the other external apparatus (¶84-88 and Fig. 6 – signal transmission operating status corresponding to the recited transmission path characteristic between the moving body and the external apparatus which is utilized to determine the classification of the location corresponding to the recited index value), and
determines, based on the index value, a second direction, in which the moving body moves, and causes the moving body to move in the second direction (¶87-88 and Fig. 6 – element 610 determining a second destination corresponding to the recited determining a second direction to which the moving body moves based on the location classifier corresponding to the recited index value).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further discloses wherein in a case where the index value is higher than a threshold, the processor determines that the second direction is a direction away from the other communication apparatus (¶81-88 and Figs. 6-9 – starting point being the location of the remote controller corresponding to the recited external apparatus being closer to the UAV than the next point to the destination which is at a first direction farther away from the external apparatus which is selected based on the state of signal transmission at the first point being above a threshold value).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose identifying the direction of a second communication apparatus, however, Dietrich discloses a signal strength based position identification system including wireless node location module utilizes signal strength data received from different wireless nodes to determines the locations of the infrastructure radio transceivers corresponding to the recited communication apparatuses which are mapped onto a coverage map indicating the relative directions of the communications apparatus (¶36-40).
The combination of the autonomous movable object signal transmission based navigation system of Zhang with the wireless node location identification and mapping of Dietrich fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous movable object signal transmission based navigation system of Zhang with the wireless node location identification and mapping of Dietrich in order to improve signal based positioning detection for both communications infrastructure and mobile devices (Dietrich - ¶12-13).
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 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18986442 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite the same limitations except the present application includes a broader recitation of utilizing an “index value indicating a transmission path characteristic” whereas the co-pending application utilizes “a communication connection relationship of a communication network”. Both values are utilized to perform the same navigation planning and control and both values are generally reflective of a communications transmission signal quality.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Corbieres et al. (US 2020/0333787) discloses a marine surface drone including: - an on-board multi-beam sonar; - a system for controlling the sonar, configured to command, for a given position of the drone, a plurality of consecutive transmissions of acoustic waves, the control system controlling the sonar transmitters so as to vary the characteristics of the transmitted acoustic waves, from one of the transmissions to the next, and - an acquisition unit configured to determine, from echo signals acquired in response to the plurality of transmissions, a three-dimensional image representing the content of a given observation volume. (Abstract)
Berntsen et al. (US 2014/0086191) discloses a maritime communication networking system including optimizing transmission parameters including optimized speed, range, direction, highest energy content, transmit power and beam forming for achieving as high throughput of data as possible (¶103).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665