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 .
Application status
This office action is in response to application filed on 09/03/2025 and Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/03/2025. Claims 1-10 and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1-10 and 19-20 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the parent Application No. JP2023-040582 filed on 03/15/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
The term “function information” in claim 1 (line 6) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “function information” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “function information” is referring to what type of information such as position information, timing information, speed information, obstacle detection information, performance information, or any other type of information.
The term “a lead aircraft” in claim 2 (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a lead aircraft” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a lead aircraft” is referring to a lead aircraft that is claimed in claim 1 (line 10) or a different lead aircraft other than the claimed lead aircraft of claim 1.
The term “a lead aircraft mobile body” in claim 3 (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a lead aircraft mobile body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a lead aircraft mobile body” is referring to a lead aircraft that is claimed in claim 1 (line 10) or a different lead aircraft mobile body other than the claimed lead aircraft of claim 1.
The term “a formation” in claim 3 (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a formation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a formation” is referring to a formation that is claimed in claim 1 (line 13) or a different formation other than the claimed formation of claim 1.
The term “the lead aircraft mobile body” in claim 3 (line 9) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the lead aircraft mobile body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “the lead aircraft mobile body” is referring to a lead aircraft that is claimed in claim 1 (line 10) or the lead aircraft mobile body of claim 3 (line 5).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the wingmen mobile bodies" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “a formation” in claim 3 (line 11) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a formation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a formation” is referring to a formation that is claimed in claim 1 (line 13) or a different formation other than the claimed formation of claim 1.
The term “a measurement function” in claim 3 (line 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a measurement function” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a measurement function” is referring to a measurement function that is claimed in claim 1 (line 9) or a different measurement function other than the claimed measurement function of claim 1.
The term “another wingman mobile body” in claim 4 (line 7) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “another wingman mobile body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “another wingman mobile body” is referring to another wingman mobile body that is claimed in claim 2 (line 5) or a different another wingman mobile body other than the claimed another wingman mobile body of claim 2.
The term “another mobile body” in claim 5 (line 7) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “another mobile body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “another mobile body” is referring to another wingman mobile body that is claimed in claim 2 (line 5) or a different another mobile body other than the claimed another wingman mobile body of claim 2.
The term “a formation” in claim 6 (line 6) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a formation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a formation” is referring to a formation that is claimed in claim 1 (line 13) or a different formation other than the claimed formation of claim 1.
The term “a formation” in claim 6 (line 6) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a formation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a formation” is referring to a formation that is claimed in claim 1 (line 13) or a different formation other than the claimed formation of claim 1.
The term “a formation” in claim 6 (line 10) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a formation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a formation” is referring to a formation that is claimed in claim 1 (line 13) or a different formation other than the claimed formation of claim 1.
The term “a formation” in claim 7 (line 6) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a formation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a formation” is referring to a formation that is claimed in claim 1 (line 13) or a different formation other than the claimed formation of claim 1.
The term “another mobile body” in claim 7 (line 17) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “another mobile body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “another mobile body” is referring to another wingman mobile body that is claimed in claim 2 (line 5) or a different another mobile body other than the claimed another wingman mobile body of claim 2.
The term “a wingman mobile body” in claim 9 (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a wingman mobile body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “a wingman mobile body” is referring to another wingman mobile body that is claimed in claim 2 (line 5) or a different wingman mobile body other than the claimed another wingman mobile body of claim 2.
The term “another mobile body” in claim 9 (line 5-6) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “another mobile body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “another mobile body” is referring to another wingman mobile body that is claimed in claim 2 (line 5) or a different another mobile body other than the claimed another wingman mobile body of claim 2.
The term “switch a newly determined lead aircraft mobile body and the newly determined wingman mobile body” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “switch a newly determined lead aircraft mobile body and the newly determined wingman mobile body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that “switch a newly determined lead aircraft mobile body and the newly determined wingman mobile body” as a newly determined lead aircraft mobile body is switched into what?, and the newly determined wingman mobile body is switched into what?
Claim Objections
Claim 6, line 10; “predetermined time” should read as “a predetermined time”.
Claim 10 is objected as improper dependent claim numbering according to MPEP 608.01(n)
608.01(n) Dependent Claims
IV. CLAIM FORM AND ARRANGEMENT
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated therefrom by any claim which does not also depend from said "dependent claim." It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer back to any preceding independent claim. These are the only restrictions with respect to the sequence of claims and, in general, applicant’s sequence should not be changed. Following list indicates how the claims should have been numbered.
claim 1 is correct
claim 2 is correct
claim 3 is correct
claim 4 is correct
claim 5 is correct
claim 10 should have been numbered as claim 6
claim 6 should have been numbered as claim 7
claim 7 should have been numbered as claim 8
claim 8 should have been numbered as claim 9
claim 9 should have been numbered as claim 10
claim 19 is correct
claim 20 is correct
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
608.01(b) Abstract of the Disclosure [R-01.2024]
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. More specifically, abstract contains legal phraseology “comprising” which is an open-ended legal term and does not limit the scope of the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (JP 2019051839 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches (currently amended) A control device (Yamada, page 3 and para. 3; “FIG. 2 shows a hardware configuration of the server device 10 and the like. Each of the server device 10 and the like (the server device 10 and the provider terminal 20) includes a processor 11, a memory 12, a storage 13, a communication device 14, an input device 15, an output device 16, and a bus 17.”) comprising:
a memory (Yamada, page 3 and para. 6; “The memory 12 is a computer-readable recording medium, and includes, for example, at least one of ROM (Read Only Memory), EPROM (Erasable Programmable ROM), EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable ROM), RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like.”); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory the at least one processor performing operations to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”):
acquire function information indicating measurement functions (Yamada, page 8 and para. 3; “the formation flight determination unit 103 is expected that drones 30 flying in a common flight airspace in a common direction come closer to each other than a predetermined distance when the following three conditions are satisfied.”, wherein determination unit 103 is within the server device 10) provided in each of a plurality of mobile bodies (Yamada, page 4 and para. 3; “the sensor device 36 is a device having a sensor group that acquires information necessary for flight control. The sensor device 36 includes a position sensor that measures the position (latitude and longitude) of the own device, and the direction in which the own device is facing (the drone 30 has a front direction defined by the own device, and the front direction is directed. A direction sensor that measures the altitude of the own device. In addition, the sensor device 36 includes a distance sensor that measures a distance from an object based on a time period from irradiation with infrared rays or millimeter waves to reception of the reflected wave.”);
determine a role of one mobile body having a measurement function meeting a predetermined criterion (Yamada, page 15 and para. 5; “This predetermined range represents an interval between the drones 30 at the time of formation flight, and is hereinafter referred to as “formation flight interval”. As the formation flight interval, for example, a range of distance L1 or more and distance L2 or less is used. As the distance L1, for example, a distance is used so that a collision can be avoided even if the previous drone 30 suddenly decelerates. As the distance L2, for example, a distance that the distance sensor can reliably measure the distance from the previous drone 30 is used.”, wherein teaches the measurement function meeting a predetermined criterion), among the plurality of mobile bodies, as a lead aircraft, and determine roles of other mobile bodies as wingmen, based on the function information (Yamada, page 14 and para. 6; “In formation flight, a parent machine having a role of leading another drone 30 and a child machine having a role of being led by the parent machine and flying are determined. In the present embodiment, the first (top) drone 30 in the direction of travel of the formation flight is determined as the master unit, and the second and subsequent (subsequent) drone 30 is determined as the slave unit.”, wherein teaches determination process of the lead and wingman roles); and
perform control to cause the plurality of mobile bodies to form a formation in accordance with the determined roles (Yamada, page 8 and para. 3; “the formation flight determination unit 103 is expected that drones 30 flying in a common flight airspace in a common direction come closer to each other than a predetermined distance when the following three conditions are satisfied.”).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”):
acquire formation navigation information in which a navigation route of a formation to be navigated and a navigation time are associated with each other (Yamada, page 6 and para. 7; “the airspace / period provisional decision unit 102 has a ratio of lengths of the divided airspaces R11, R12, and R13 in the flight airspace R1 of 2: 2: 3, and a period from the scheduled departure time to the estimated arrival time is 70 minutes. For example, 20 minutes: 20 minutes: 30 minutes is calculated as the airspace passing period of each divided airspace. The airspace / period provisional decision unit 102 creates a margin before and after the time when these airspace passage periods have elapsed sequentially from the scheduled departure time (that is, the time after 20 minutes, the time after 40 minutes, and the time after 70 minutes). A period having a start time or an end time as a time including the period is provisionally determined as a flight permission period in each divided airspace.”),
in a case where a predetermined mobile body different from the plurality of mobile bodies arrives (Yamada, page 15 and para. 7; “For example, in the example of FIG. 11, the third control unit 333 of the drone 30a-1 that is the parent aircraft flies from the coordinates P3 to P4 according to the speed V21 of the slower drone 30b-1 that forms the formation.”, wherein the flight speed of 30a-1 (the predetermined mobile body) is different from the flight speed of 30b-1 and 30b-2 (the plurality of mobile bodies arrives at the waiting point).) at a waiting point (Yamada, page 12 and para. 3; “the flight control information generation unit 204 adds the speed V11 that is the normal speed of the drone 30a-1 as the flight speed from the coordinates P1 to P3”, wherein P3 is the waiting point of the 30b-1 and 30b-2), specify a formation that will pass through the waiting point (Yamada, page 12 and para. 4; “Further, the flight control information generation unit 204 sets the speed V21 (speed V21 <V11) which is the normal speed of the drone 30b-1 as the flight speed from the coordinates P3 to P4 where the drones 30a-1 and 30b-1 perform formation flight. )”) within predetermined time based on the formation navigation information (Yamada, page 6 and para. 8; “assuming that the margin period is 3 minutes”), and
in a case where the formation is specified perform control to cause the predetermined mobile body to follow a mobile body of the specified formation at the waiting point (Yamada, page 12 and para. 4; “Further, the flight control information generation unit 204 sets the speed V21 (speed V21 <V11) which is the normal speed of the drone 30b-1 as the flight speed from the coordinates P3 to P4 where the drones 30a-1 and 30b-1 perform formation flight. )”, Since the flight speed of 30a-1 (the predetermined mobile body) is higher than the flight speed of 30b-1 and 30b-2 (the plurality of mobile bodies arrives at the waiting point), the predetermined mobile body (30a-1) now follows the mobile body 30b-1 (parent mobile body) of the plurality of mobile bodies at point P3).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”):
acquire: formation navigation information including a formation navigation route that is a navigation route of a formation to be navigated (Yamada, page 10 and para. 7; “FIG. 10 shows an example of the generated flight instruction. In FIG. 10, in addition to the drones 30a-1 and 10b-1, the flight airspace from the cell C10_10 to the cell C30_30 via the cell C20_10, the cell C20_20, and the cell C30_20 is allocated as shown in FIG. 10 (a). An example will be described in which the drone 30c-1 is subjected to formation flight.”); and
mobile body navigation information including an individual navigation route that is a navigation route for each mobile body (Yamada, page 10 and para. 7; “As shown in FIG. 10 (b), the flight instruction generation unit 104, in addition to the drone ID indicated by the allocation information, the flight air space, and the flight permission period, the merge cell that merges with the other drone 30, and the merge cell Flight instructions indicating the time of merging at and the arrangement order in formation flight are generated.”),
specify a mobile body that is to deviate from the formation navigation route, among mobile bodies that navigate in a predetermined formation, based on the formation navigation information and the mobile body navigation information (Yamada, page 11 and para. 3; “In the example of FIG. 10, two of the drones 30a-1 and 30b-1 perform formation flight in the formation flight airspace RH11 from the cell C20_05 that is the merge cell to the cell C20_10 that is the merge cell. Next, in the formation flight airspace RH12 from the cell C20_10, which is a merged cell to which the drone 30c-1 merges, to the cell C20_15 from which the drone 30b-1 leaves, three of the drones 30a-1, 30c-1, and 30b-1 are formed. Make a flight.”, wherein the specified mobile body is the 30b-1),
cause the specified mobile body to leave the predetermined formation (Yamada, page 11 and para. 3; “In the example of FIG. 10, two of the drones 30a-1 and 30b-1 perform formation flight in the formation flight airspace RH11 from the cell C20_05 that is the merge cell to the cell C20_10 that is the merge cell. Next, in the formation flight airspace RH12 from the cell C20_10, which is a merged cell to which the drone 30c-1 merges, to the cell C20_15 from which the drone 30b-1 leaves, three of the drones 30a-1, 30c-1, and 30b-1 are formed. Make a flight.”, wherein the specified mobile body 30b-1 leaves the formation), and
perform control to cause a mobile body that has followed the specified mobile body to follow another mobile body in the predetermined formation different from the specified mobile body (Yamada, page 11 and para. 4; “Then, in the formation flight airspace RH13 from the cell C20_15 to the cell C30_30 where the flight airspaces of the drones 30a-1 and 30c-1 are separated, the two drones 30a-1 and 30c-1 perform formation flight.”, wherein mobile body 30c-1 that followed the mobile body 30b-1 now follows 30a-1 as the flight formation continued to cell 30_30).
Regarding claim 19, Yamada teaches (original) A control method comprising (Yamada, page 2 and para. 1; “Embodiment FIG. 1 shows an overall configuration of a drone operation management system 1 according to an embodiment. The drone operation management system 1 is a system for managing drone operations.”):
acquiring function information indicating measurement functions (Yamada, page 8 and para. 3; “the formation flight determination unit 103 is expected that drones 30 flying in a common flight airspace in a common direction come closer to each other than a predetermined distance when the following three conditions are satisfied.”, wherein determination unit 103 is within the server device 10) provided in each of a plurality of mobile bodies (Yamada, page 4 and para. 3; “the sensor device 36 is a device having a sensor group that acquires information necessary for flight control. The sensor device 36 includes a position sensor that measures the position (latitude and longitude) of the own device, and the direction in which the own device is facing (the drone 30 has a front direction defined by the own device, and the front direction is directed. A direction sensor that measures the altitude of the own device. In addition, the sensor device 36 includes a distance sensor that measures a distance from an object based on a time period from irradiation with infrared rays or millimeter waves to reception of the reflected wave.”);
determining a role of one mobile body having a measurement function meeting a predetermined criterion (Yamada, page 15 and para. 5; “This predetermined range represents an interval between the drones 30 at the time of formation flight, and is hereinafter referred to as “formation flight interval”. As the formation flight interval, for example, a range of distance L1 or more and distance L2 or less is used. As the distance L1, for example, a distance is used so that a collision can be avoided even if the previous drone 30 suddenly decelerates. As the distance L2, for example, a distance that the distance sensor can reliably measure the distance from the previous drone 30 is used.”, wherein teaches the measurement function meeting a predetermined criterion), among the plurality of mobile bodies, as a lead aircraft, and determining roles of other mobile bodies as wingmen, based on the function information (Yamada, page 14 and para. 6; “In formation flight, a parent machine having a role of leading another drone 30 and a child machine having a role of being led by the parent machine and flying are determined. In the present embodiment, the first (top) drone 30 in the direction of travel of the formation flight is determined as the master unit, and the second and subsequent (subsequent) drone 30 is determined as the slave unit.”, wherein teaches determination process of the lead and wingman roles); and
performing control to cause the plurality of mobile bodies to form a formation in accordance with the determined roles (Yamada, page 8 and para. 3; “the formation flight determination unit 103 is expected that drones 30 flying in a common flight airspace in a common direction come closer to each other than a predetermined distance when the following three conditions are satisfied.”).
Regarding claim 20, Yamada teaches (currently amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5-6; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips. The program may be transmitted from the network via a telecommunication line. The memory 12 is a computer-readable recording medium, and includes, for example, at least one of ROM (Read Only Memory), EPROM (Erasable Programmable ROM), EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable ROM), RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like.”):
acquiring function information indicating measurement functions (Yamada, page 8 and para. 3; “the formation flight determination unit 103 is expected that drones 30 flying in a common flight airspace in a common direction come closer to each other than a predetermined distance when the following three conditions are satisfied.”, wherein determination unit 103 is within the server device 10) provided in each of a plurality of mobile bodies (Yamada, page 4 and para. 3; “the sensor device 36 is a device having a sensor group that acquires information necessary for flight control. The sensor device 36 includes a position sensor that measures the position (latitude and longitude) of the own device, and the direction in which the own device is facing (the drone 30 has a front direction defined by the own device, and the front direction is directed. A direction sensor that measures the altitude of the own device. In addition, the sensor device 36 includes a distance sensor that measures a distance from an object based on a time period from irradiation with infrared rays or millimeter waves to reception of the reflected wave.”),
determining a role of one mobile body having a measurement function meeting a predetermined criterion (Yamada, page 15 and para. 5; “This predetermined range represents an interval between the drones 30 at the time of formation flight, and is hereinafter referred to as “formation flight interval”. As the formation flight interval, for example, a range of distance L1 or more and distance L2 or less is used. As the distance L1, for example, a distance is used so that a collision can be avoided even if the previous drone 30 suddenly decelerates. As the distance L2, for example, a distance that the distance sensor can reliably measure the distance from the previous drone 30 is used.”, wherein teaches the measurement function meeting a predetermined criterion), among the plurality of mobile bodies, as a lead aircraft, and determining roles of other mobile bodies as wingmen, based on the function information (Yamada, page 14 and para. 6; “In formation flight, a parent machine having a role of leading another drone 30 and a child machine having a role of being led by the parent machine and flying are determined. In the present embodiment, the first (top) drone 30 in the direction of travel of the formation flight is determined as the master unit, and the second and subsequent (subsequent) drone 30 is determined as the slave unit.”, wherein teaches determination process of the lead and wingman roles); and
performing control to cause the plurality of mobile bodies to form a formation in accordance with the determined roles (Yamada, page 8 and para. 3; “the formation flight determination unit 103 is expected that drones 30 flying in a common flight airspace in a common direction come closer to each other than a predetermined distance when the following three conditions are satisfied.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 2019051839 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matus (US 20260037004 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”):
perform control to cause the mobile bodies determined as the wingmen to follow a lead aircraft or another wingman mobile body, and to turn off a function not necessary for following.
Yamada does not explicitly teach perform control to cause the mobile bodies determined as the wingmen to follow a lead aircraft or another wingman mobile body, and to turn off a function not necessary for following.
Matus, in the same field of endeavor (Matus, at least one para. 0085; “Systems and methods described herein use multiple UAVs to provide significant improvements to UASs. Some of the improvements relate to navigation/position estimation and/or object identification, whereas others relate to battery life, communication, and/or modularity. In general, the systems, methods, and techniques described herein can be used in any UAV or UAS environment.”) teaches perform control to cause the mobile bodies determined as the wingmen to follow a lead aircraft or another wingman mobile body (Matus, at least one para. 0155; “Once it has been replaced, the UAV 105A can fly to a base (e.g., “home”) for battery replacement or recharging, or it can fly elsewhere if needed. For example, if the UAV 105B replaces the UAV 105A, the UAV 105A could fly to the location of a UAV 105C and replace it.”), and to turn off a function not necessary for following (Matus, at least one para. 0154; “a task or function that was being performed by the UAV 105A can be switched to and performed by the UAV 105B. For example, if the UAV 105A was providing a video feed to a ground station 200, the video feed from the UAV 105A can be switched over to the UAV 105B (such that the UAV 105B then provides the video feed to the ground station 200)”).
Yamada and Matus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as controlling flight of flying objects as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processor the Yamada with teaching of Matus. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the UAV can minimize battery depletion and safely land. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, it is obvious once the UAV 105A switch over the lead role to the UAV 105B, UAV 105A need to recharge. Otherwise, UAV 105A can crash and jeopardize the structural integrity. It is also obvious that the UAV 105A need to turn-off unnecessary applications in order to preserve battery life. As a result, the UAV 105A can maintain flying stratus (whether it follows a leader or another wingman) until it reaches the landing process. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (KSR).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”):
acquire a notification indicating occurrence of an anomaly from a lead aircraft mobile body flying in formation,
newly determine the role of the lead aircraft mobile body as a wingman, and
determine the role of one mobile body having a measurement function meeting the predetermined criterion, among the wingmen mobile bodies flying in formation, as the lead aircraft, based on the function information.
Yamada does not explicitly teach acquire a notification indicating occurrence of an anomaly from a lead aircraft mobile body flying in formation,
newly determine the role of the lead aircraft mobile body as a wingman, and
determine the role of one mobile body having a measurement function meeting the predetermined criterion, among the wingmen mobile bodies flying in formation, as the lead aircraft, based on the function information.
Matus, in the same field of endeavor (Matus, at least one para. 0085; “Systems and methods described herein use multiple UAVs to provide significant improvements to UASs. Some of the improvements relate to navigation/position estimation and/or object identification, whereas others relate to battery life, communication, and/or modularity. In general, the systems, methods, and techniques described herein can be used in any UAV or UAS environment.”) teaches acquire a notification (Matus, at least one para. 0198; “the UAV 105A can broadcast a request for replacement (or transmit a signal that is established a priori as a replacement-request signal) that can be received by multiple UAVs 105 and/or recharging stations 250.”) indicating occurrence of an anomaly from a lead aircraft mobile body flying (Matus, at least one para. 0154; “In some embodiments, a UAV 105A begins flying a mission. When a triggering condition occurs (e.g., the battery of the UAV 105A depletes to a threshold level (e.g., insufficient to complete the mission but sufficient to allow the UAV 105A to return to a base for recharging or battery replacement), the UAV 105A identifies an object, target, or landmark, the UAV 105A reaches a specified position, etc.)”, wherein the anomaly is the detection of the depleted battery level) in formation (Matus, at least one para. 0126; “For purposes of explanation, it is assumed that the UAVs 105 of the UAS 100 are flying in formation”),
newly determine the role of the lead aircraft mobile body as a wingman (Matus, at least one para. 0154; “In some embodiments, a UAV 105A begins flying a mission. When a triggering condition occurs (e.g., the battery of the UAV 105A depletes to a threshold level (e.g., insufficient to complete the mission but sufficient to allow the UAV 105A to return to a base for recharging or battery replacement), the UAV 105A identifies an object, target, or landmark, the UAV 105A reaches a specified position, etc.)”, wherein the return of the UAV 105A to the base is considered as switching the lead aircraft into a wingman), and
determine the role of one mobile body having a measurement function meeting the predetermined criterion, among the wingmen mobile bodies flying in formation, as the lead aircraft, based on the function information (Matus, at least one para. 0154; “a UAV 105B flies to the approximate location (altitude, position) of the UAV 105A and replaces it (e.g., providing the same orientation, view, etc.). Once the UAV 105B is in position, the control and/or data feed to/from the UAV 105A can be switched over to the UAV 105B. In addition, a task or function that was being performed by the UAV 105A can be switched to and performed by the UAV 105B.”, wherein the UAV 105B taking over the duties of the UAV 105A is considered as the wingman aircraft being switched into a lead aircraft).
Yamada and Matus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as controlling flight of flying objects as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processor the Yamada with teaching of Matus. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the UAV can minimize battery depletion and safely land. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, it is obvious once the UAV 105A switch over the lead role to the UAV 105B, UAV 105A need to recharge. Otherwise, UAV 105A can crash and jeopardize the structural integrity. It is also obvious that the UAV 105A need to turn-off unnecessary applications in order to preserve battery life. As a result, the UAV 105A can maintain flying stratus (whether it follows a leader or another wingman) until it reaches the landing process. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (KSR).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”):
in a case where the notification indicates the anomaly in a measurement function relating to position information,
perform control to cause the mobile body newly determined as the wingman to follow the lead aircraft or another wingman mobile body.
Yamada does not explicitly teach in a case where the notification indicates the anomaly in a measurement function relating to position information,
perform control to cause the mobile body newly determined as the wingman to follow the lead aircraft or another wingman mobile body, using an imaging function.
Matus, in the same field of endeavor (Matus, at least one para. 0085; “Systems and methods described herein use multiple UAVs to provide significant improvements to UASs. Some of the improvements relate to navigation/position estimation and/or object identification, whereas others relate to battery life, communication, and/or modularity. In general, the systems, methods, and techniques described herein can be used in any UAV or UAS environment.”) teaches in a case where the notification indicates the anomaly in a measurement function relating to position information (Matus, at least one para. 0168; “As an alternative to triggering the replacement of the UAV 105A by the UAV 105B based explicitly on battery level, the activation of the UAV 105B can be triggered after a specified period of time. For example, if it is known that the maximum expected flight time of the UAV 105A is T, the trigger for the UAV 105B to replace the UAV 105A could be after a period of 0.8T, 0.9T, or any other value less than T.”, wherein the position information is time),
perform control to cause the mobile body newly determined as the wingman to follow the lead aircraft or another wingman mobile body (Matus, at least one para. 0155; “Once it has been replaced, the UAV 105A can fly to a base (e.g., “home”) for battery replacement or recharging, or it can fly elsewhere if needed. For example, if the UAV 105B replaces the UAV 105A, the UAV 105A could fly to the location of a UAV 105C and replace it.”), using an imaging function (Matus, at least one para. 0109; “Furthermore, the absolute and/or relative positions/orientations/attitudes of the UAVs and/or their cameras can be selected to optimize some aspect of the estimates (e.g., speed of estimate, accuracy in a selected direction (e.g., azimuth, elevation, horizontal, vertical, etc.)). For example, the UAVs may be configured (e.g., programmed) to execute a particular pattern of movements (e.g., from particular coordinated relative altitudes, particular coordinated relative distances from each other, etc.) to gather images from particular relative locations.”).
Yamada and Matus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as controlling flight of flying objects as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processor the Yamada with teaching of Matus. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the UAV can minimize battery depletion and safely land. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, it is obvious once the UAV 105A switch over the lead role to the UAV 105B, UAV 105A need to recharge. Otherwise, UAV 105A can crash and jeopardize the structural integrity. It is also obvious that the UAV 105A need to turn-off unnecessary applications in order to preserve battery life. As a result, the UAV 105A can maintain flying stratus (whether it follows a leader or another wingman) until it reaches the landing process. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (KSR).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”):
in a case where the notification indicates the anomaly relating to a remaining capacity of a battery,
control the mobile body newly determined as the wingman to turn off a function not necessary for following another mobile body.
Yamada does not explicitly teach in a case where the notification indicates the anomaly relating to a remaining capacity of a battery,
control the mobile body newly determined as the wingman to turn off a function not necessary for following another mobile body.
Matus, in the same field of endeavor (Matus, at least one para. 0085; “Systems and methods described herein use multiple UAVs to provide significant improvements to UASs. Some of the improvements relate to navigation/position estimation and/or object identification, whereas others relate to battery life, communication, and/or modularity. In general, the systems, methods, and techniques described herein can be used in any UAV or UAS environment.”) teaches in a case where the notification indicates the anomaly relating to a remaining capacity of a battery (Matus, at least one para. 0154; “In some embodiments, a UAV 105A begins flying a mission. When a triggering condition occurs (e.g., the battery of the UAV 105A depletes to a threshold level (e.g., insufficient to complete the mission but sufficient to allow the UAV 105A to return to a base for recharging or battery replacement)”),
control the mobile body newly determined as the wingman to turn off a function not necessary for following another mobile body (Matus, at least one para. 0154; “a task or function that was being performed by the UAV 105A can be switched to and performed by the UAV 105B. For example, if the UAV 105A was providing a video feed to a ground station 200, the video feed from the UAV 105A can be switched over to the UAV 105B (such that the UAV 105B then provides the video feed to the ground station 200)”).
Yamada and Matus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as controlling flight of flying objects as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processor the Yamada with teaching of Matus. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the UAV can minimize battery depletion and safely land. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, it is obvious once the UAV 105A switch over the lead role to the UAV 105B, UAV 105A need to recharge. Otherwise, UAV 105A can crash and jeopardize the structural integrity. It is also obvious that the UAV 105A need to turn-off unnecessary applications in order to preserve battery life. As a result, the UAV 105A can maintain flying stratus (whether it follows a leader or another wingman) until it reaches the landing process. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (KSR).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”):
acquire weather information on a navigation route of the plurality of mobile bodies,
specify a pattern of formation from the acquired weather information, based on a learning model in which a relationship between the weather information, battery consumption of the mobile bodies, and the pattern of formation has been learned, and
control the plurality of mobile bodies in such a way as to navigate in the specified pattern of formation.
Yamada does not explicitly teach acquire weather information on a navigation route of the plurality of mobile bodies,
specify a pattern of formation from the acquired weather information, based on a learning model in which a relationship between the weather information, battery consumption of the mobile bodies, and the pattern of formation has been learned, and
control the plurality of mobile bodies in such a way as to navigate in the specified pattern of formation.
Matus, in the same field of endeavor (Matus, at least one para. 0085; “Systems and methods described herein use multiple UAVs to provide significant improvements to UASs. Some of the improvements relate to navigation/position estimation and/or object identification, whereas others relate to battery life, communication, and/or modularity. In general, the systems, methods, and techniques described herein can be used in any UAV or UAS environment.”) teaches acquire weather information on a navigation route of the plurality of mobile bodies (Matus, at least one para. 0163; “In some embodiments, once a threshold amount of training has been performed, the UAS 100 can perform inference. For example, the UAS 100 can apply the learned knowledge to make predictions (e.g., as to the flight time of UAVs 105 under current weather conditions, the path of an object being followed. etc.)”) and (Matus, at least one para. 0167; “the activation of the UAV 105B is based at least in part on information retrieved (e.g., by the ground station 200 or the UAV 105B) from the UAV 105A (e.g., information about a battery or power level, an estimated flight time (e.g., remaining or flown), an observation (e.g., of weather), a target, a landmark, a temperature, etc.)”, wherein the observation of the weather happens during the operation of the UAV),
specify a pattern of formation from the acquired weather information, based on a learning model in which a relationship between the weather information, battery consumption of the mobile bodies (Matus, at least one para. 0167; “the activation of the UAV 105B is based at least in part on information retrieved (e.g., by the ground station 200 or the UAV 105B) from the UAV 105A (e.g., information about a battery or power level, an estimated flight time (e.g., remaining or flown), an observation (e.g., of weather), a target, a landmark, a temperature, etc.)”), and the pattern of formation has been learned (Matus, at least one para. 0161; “The UAS 100 may use data as input to learn patterns, make predictions, and/or perform tasks. ”), and
control the plurality of mobile bodies in such a way as to navigate in the specified pattern of formation (Matus, at least one para. 0168; “As an alternative to triggering the replacement of the UAV 105A by the UAV 105B based explicitly on battery level, the activation of the UAV 105B can be triggered after a specified period of time...the specified period of time is adjustable (e.g., based on actual conditions experienced during the mission, such as, for example, rate of battery depletion, charge remaining when the UAV 105A arrives at the recharging station 250, weather, etc.).”).
Yamada and Matus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as controlling flight of flying objects as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processor the Yamada with teaching of Matus. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the UAV can minimize battery depletion, protect UAV from weather related elements. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, it is obvious once the UAV 105A switch over the lead role to the UAV 105B, UAV 105A need to recharge. Otherwise, UAV 105A can crash and jeopardize the structural integrity. It is also obvious that the UAV 105A need to turn-off unnecessary applications in order to preserve battery life. As a result, the UAV 105A can maintain flying stratus (whether it follows a leader or another wingman) until it reaches the landing process. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (KSR).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”)
Yamada does not explicitly teach wherein a mark is attached to each of the plurality of mobile bodies,
cause a wingman mobile body to follow another mobile body by causing the wingman mobile body to image the mark.
Matus, in the same field of endeavor (Matus, at least one para. 0085; “Systems and methods described herein use multiple UAVs to provide significant improvements to UASs. Some of the improvements relate to navigation/position estimation and/or object identification, whereas others relate to battery life, communication, and/or modularity. In general, the systems, methods, and techniques described herein can be used in any UAV or UAS environment.”) teaches wherein a mark is attached to each of the plurality of mobile bodies (Matus, at least one para. 0095; “As another example of using physical properties, each UAV can include a physical characteristic (e.g., a shape, a circle, a word, an alphanumeric character, a logo, a pattern, a code (e.g., a QR code or bar code), a color, a reflector, etc.) that is known to the other UAV(s) in the UAS.”),
cause a wingman mobile body to follow another mobile body by causing the wingman mobile body to image the mark (Matus, at least one para. 0109; “Furthermore, the absolute and/or relative positions/orientations/attitudes of the UAVs and/or their cameras can be selected to optimize some aspect of the estimates (e.g., speed of estimate, accuracy in a selected direction (e.g., azimuth, elevation, horizontal, vertical, etc.)). For example, the UAVs may be configured (e.g., programmed) to execute a particular pattern of movements (e.g., from particular coordinated relative altitudes, particular coordinated relative distances from each other, etc.) to gather images from particular relative locations.”).
Yamada and Matus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as controlling flight of flying objects as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processor the Yamada with teaching of Matus. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the distance between two UAVs can be determined via the image processing techniques. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches (currently amended) The control device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor further performs operation to (Yamada, page 3 and para. 5; “The number of processors 11 that execute various processes may be one, two or more, and the two or more processors 11 may execute various processes simultaneously or sequentially. Further, the processor 11 may be implemented by one or more chips.”): switch a newly determined lead aircraft mobile body and the newly determined wingman mobile body.
Yamada does not explicitly teach switch a newly determined lead aircraft mobile body and the newly determined wingman mobile body
Matus, in the same field of endeavor (Matus, at least one para. 0085; “Systems and methods described herein use multiple UAVs to provide significant improvements to UASs. Some of the improvements relate to navigation/position estimation and/or object identification, whereas others relate to battery life, communication, and/or modularity. In general, the systems, methods, and techniques described herein can be used in any UAV or UAS environment.”) teaches switch a newly determined lead aircraft mobile body and the newly determined wingman mobile body (Matus, at least one para. 0154; “a UAV 105B flies to the approximate location (altitude, position) of the UAV 105A and replaces it (e.g., providing the same orientation, view, etc.). Once the UAV 105B is in position, the control and/or data feed to/from the UAV 105A can be switched over to the UAV 105B. In addition, a task or function that was being performed by the UAV 105A can be switched to and performed by the UAV 105B.”, wherein the UAV 105B taking over the duties of the UAV 105A is considered as the wingman aircraft being switched into a lead aircraft).
Yamada and Matus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as controlling flight of flying objects as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processor the Yamada with teaching of Matus. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the overall system is able to continuously perform the action or carry out the task without external control or influence (Matus; 0157). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UPUL P CHANDRASIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-5823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30 am to 5pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/U.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights