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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a Continuation (CON) of PCT/JP2022/048155 (now WO 2024/142223 A1), filed 12/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the “communication device” in the limitation “a communication device configured or programmed to communicate with a management device” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the system to communicate.
In claim 1, the “management device” in the limitation “a communication device configured or programmed to communicate with a management device” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the management of agricultural work.
In claim 1, the “controller” in the limitation “a controller configured or programmed to control operation of the unmanned vehicle” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the unmanned vehicle to be controlled.
In claim 6 and 13, the “positioning device” in the limitation “a positioning device configured or programmed to output position information of the unmanned aerial vehicle” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the position information to be output.
In claim 15, the “communication device” in the limitation “a communication device configured or programmed to communicate with the unmanned vehicle” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables communication with the unmanned vehicle.
In claim 15, the “storage device” in the limitation “a storage device to store a work plan for the unmanned aerial vehicle” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the work plan to be stored.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0094] The communication I/F 38 is an interface for communication between the controller 4a and other electronic components or electronic control units (ECUs).”
“[0056] The management device 300 includes a processor 310. [0097] The processor 310 of the management device 300 may also have a hardware configuration similar to that shown in FIG. 11.”
“[0090] The controller 4a includes a processor 34, ROM (Read Only Memory) 35, RAM (Random Access Memory) 36…”
“[0060] The positioning device 4f includes, for example, a processing circuit that calculates the position of the multicopter 10 based on satellite signals received by a GNSS receiver included in the sensors 4b.”
“[0059] The storage device 4e may be, for example, a semiconductor memory, magnetic storage device, or optical storage device, or a combination thereof.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 1 and apparatus Claim 15 as the claims that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A control system for an agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising:
a communication device configured or programmed to communicate with a management device to manage agricultural work performed by the unmanned aerial vehicle; and
a controller configured or programmed to control operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle;
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, prior to start of flight, request permission from the management device, via the communication device, to activate functions associated with planned agricultural work, and to activate the functions when permitted by the management device.
A management device for managing agricultural work performed by an agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle, the management device comprising:
a communication device configured or programmed to communicate with the unmanned aerial vehicle;
a storage device to store a work plan for the unmanned aerial vehicle; and
a processor configured or programmed to, when the communication device receives a request from the unmanned aerial vehicle for permission to activate functions associated with planned agricultural work,
determine whether to permit activation based on the request and the work plan, and to send a signal indicating permission or denial to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the communication device.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. In light of the specification activating functions could include obtaining a position information. For example, a person could request permission from management to provide position data to allow management to determine whether it is safe to operate a drone in a given area and indicate the permission to do so.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of communication devices, a controller, a storage device, and a processor. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “send a signal indicating permission or denial to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the communication device”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 4-8 and 10-14 further define characteristics of the system recite limitations that can also be performed in the human mind. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-3 and 9 recite the limitation of activating flight and driving the ground implement, which does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This integration renders these claims eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wake et al. (US 2022/021922 A1), hereinafter Wake.
With respect to claim 1, Wake discloses a control system for an agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle, (see at least [0034-0035, 0057] “The industrial machine may be a drone…an agricultural machine.”)
comprising: a communication device configured or programmed to communicate with a management device to manage agricultural work performed by the unmanned aerial vehicle; (see at least [0039] “a control apparatus that is capable of being communicatively connected to an industrial machine and an area information acquiring device that acquires information on an operation area where the industrial machine is to be caused to perform an operation”)
and a controller configured or programmed to control operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle; (see at least [0014] “The industrial machinery system may further include an operating device with which the industrial machine is operated”)
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, prior to start of flight, request permission from the management device, via the communication device, to activate functions associated with planned agricultural work, and to activate the functions when permitted by the management device. (see at least [0038] “a control apparatus that determines whether to perform the operation by the industrial machine in the operation area… in accordance with whether an area corresponding to the operation area is identifiable from information on a registered area that is acquired in advance.” [0004] “determines whether to perform an operation by an agricultural machine before the operation so as to guarantee a safe operation.”)
With respect to claim 2, Wake discloses the controller is configured or programmed to request permission from the management device to activate a function for flying over a work area where agricultural work is planned as a function associated with the agricultural work, (see at least [0137] “The determining section 32 determines whether the operation area substantially matches an agricultural field in the whitelist, and thus a corresponding agricultural field can be specified (S15).”)
and to activate the function for flying over the work area when permitted by the management device. (see at least [0140] “the operation type is proper, the flight instruction section 33 sends an instruction about permitting the flight to the drone 100 (S18).”)
With respect to claim 3, Wake discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured or programmed to be connected to a ground work implement configured to execute the agricultural work; (see at least Fig. 2, [0060] “Chemical agent nozzles… for spreading chemical agent downward”)
the controller is configured or programmed to: request permission from the management device to activate a function to drive the ground work implement as a function associated with the agricultural work; (see at least [0139-0140] “In a case where the identification information on the drone 100 is proper, the determining section 32 determines whether the operation type is proper (S17)… the flight instruction section 33 sends an instruction about permitting the flight to the drone 100 (S18).” [0079] “The operating device 401 includes a transmission/reception section 4011… a purpose of a flight of the drone, and a type of chemical agent in a case where the drone is to perform chemical agent spreading.”)
and activate the function to drive the ground work implement when permitted by the management device. (see at least [0076] “The flight controller 501 sends a control signal to the pump 106 to adjust a chemical agent amount to be discharged or stop discharging the chemical agent.” [0068] “the drone 100 takes off from the takeoff-landing point 406 located outside the agricultural field 403, spreads the chemical agent over the agricultural field 403”)
With respect to claim 4, Wake discloses the controller is configured or programmed to request the permission to activate from the management device when the unmanned aerial vehicle starts up or receives a flight command. (see at least [0134] “As illustrated in FIG. 14, first, when an operation plan is selected on the input section 4012 of the operating device 401 (S11), the operation plan is sent to the control apparatus 3.”)
With respect to claim 6, Wake discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a positioning device; (see at least [0073] “an absolute position of the drone 100 can be measured… by the flight controller 501.”)
and the controller is configured or programmed to activate the positioning device upon receiving permission to activate. (see at least [0063] “The drone… is controlled so as to perform autonomous flight” [0068] “the drone 100 takes off from the takeoff-landing point 406 located outside the agricultural field 403, spreads the chemical agent over the agricultural field 403” [0015] “The area information acquiring device may be a… a position coordinate acquiring device that is mounted in the industrial machine… the determining section may permit the operation by the industrial machine” [0140] “the flight instruction section 33 sends an instruction about permitting the flight to the drone 100 (S18).” Note: The process shown in Fig. 14 does not rely on the current position of the UAV, but the position is required to accurately autonomously fly to drone over the operation area. Therefore, it is understood that the position would only need to be activated for the flight operation after permitted.)
With respect to claim 7, Wake discloses the controller is configured or programmed to activate a remote controller for the unmanned aerial vehicle upon receiving permission to activate. (see at least [0063] “The drone 100 according to the invention of the present application is controlled so as to… allow manual operation in basic operations such as a takeoff and a return and in an emergency situation.” Note: If permission is not given the user is given a notification, and manual control would not be allowed.)
With respect to claim 10, Wake discloses the controller is configured or programmed, when requesting permission to activate from the management device, to send work information indicating a type of the planned agricultural work to the management device via the communication device; (see at least [0134] “As illustrated in FIG. 14, first, when an operation plan is selected on the input section 4012 of the operating device 401 (S11), the operation plan is sent to the control apparatus 3.”)
and the management device is configured or programmed to determine whether to permit activation based at least on a predetermined work plan for the unmanned aerial vehicle and the work information. (see at least [0134] “Next, whether a difference between a time point of acquisition of the operation plan and a scheduled time point of flight is within a predetermined range is determined (S12).”)
With respect to claim 11, Wake discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured or programmed to be connected to a ground work implement configured to execute the agricultural work; (see at least Fig. 2, [0060] “Chemical agent nozzles… for spreading chemical agent downward”)
the controller is configured or programmed, when requesting permission to activate from the management device, to send implement information indicating a type of the ground work implement connected to the unmanned aerial vehicle to the management device via the communication device; (see at least [0134] “the operation plan is sent to the control apparatus 3.” [0079] “Via the input section 4012, a user inputs identification information on the user, identification information on the drone to perform an operation, a purpose of a flight of the drone, and a type of chemical agent in a case where the drone is to perform chemical agent spreading.”)
and the management device is configured or programmed to determine whether to permit activation based at least on a predetermined work plan for the unmanned aerial vehicle and the implement information. (see at least [0123] “The determining section 32 determines feasibility of a flight of the drone 100 in an agricultural field based on an arranged operation plan and an area type of the corresponding agricultural field… when the area type fits an operation type of the drone, the determining section 32 permits a flight of the drone in an operation area.”)
With respect to claim 12, Wake discloses the controller is configured or programmed, when requesting permission to activate from the management device, to send route information regarding a flight path for the planned agricultural work and/or area information regarding a work area for the agricultural work to the management device via the communication device; (see at least [0134] “As illustrated in FIG. 14, first, when an operation plan is selected on the input section 4012 of the operating device 401 (S11), the operation plan is sent to the control apparatus 3.” [0066] “The agriculture cloud 405 may… perform processing for determining a flight route.”)
and the management device is configured or programmed to determine whether to permit activation based at least on a predetermined work plan for the unmanned aerial vehicle and the route information and/or the area information. (see at least [0005-0006] “in a case where a requested flight route is out of the flight safety zones, the flight on the flight route is not permitted. A flight plan included in a flight request is specified by inputting flight points”)
With respect to claim 13, Wake discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a positioning device configured or programmed to output position information of the unmanned aerial vehicle; (see at least [0073] “an absolute position of the drone 100 can be measured… by the flight controller 501.”)
the controller is configured or programmed, when requesting permission to activate from the management device, to send the position information to the management device via the communication device; (see at least [0015] “The area information acquiring device may be a measuring device that acquires, as the information on the operation area, position coordinates of the operation area or a position coordinate acquiring device that is mounted in the industrial machine… the determining section may permit the operation by the industrial machine”)
and the management device is configured or programmed to determine whether to permit activation based at least on a predetermined work plan for the unmanned aerial vehicle and the position information. (see at least [0137] “the determining section 32 compares the position coordinates of the operation area with information on agricultural fields in the whitelist (S14). The determining section 32 determines whether the operation area substantially matches an agricultural field in the whitelist, and thus a corresponding agricultural field can be specified (S15).”)
With respect to claim 14, Wake discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising: the control system according to claim 1; and a plurality of rotors controlled by the control system. (see at least [0057] “The industrial machine is… an aerial vehicle including a plurality of rotary wings” [0071] “control functions in an embodiment of a drone for spreading a chemical agent”)
With respect to claim 15, Wake discloses a management device for managing agricultural work performed by an agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle, (see at least [0097] “Functions of the control apparatus 3…may be implemented in a separate device… includes a reception section 31, a storage section 310, a determining section 32, and a flight instruction section 33.”)
the management device comprising: a communication device configured or programmed to communicate with the unmanned aerial vehicle; (see at least [0126] “The flight instruction section 33 is a functional section that sends instructions for a flight to the drone 100.”)
a storage device to store a work plan for the unmanned aerial vehicle; (see at least [0106] “the storage section 310 may store one or more operation plans that are received from the area information acquiring device 2 or the operating device 401.”)
and a processor configured or programmed to, when the communication device receives a request from the unmanned aerial vehicle for permission to activate functions associated with planned agricultural work, determine whether to permit activation based on the request and the work plan, and to send a signal indicating permission or denial to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the communication device. (see at least [0107] “The determining section 32 is a functional section that determines feasibility of a flight of the drone 100 in an operation area based on the whitelist stored in the storage section 310.” [0112] “and permits a flight of the drone 100 in the operation area.”)
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over Wake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (CN 106853810 A), hereinafter Ma.
With respect to claim 5, Wake discloses the permission process for permitting a function of an agricultural drone, but does not explicitly disclose that the permission is requested after a specific number of startups of the drone.
However, Ma teaches the controller is configured or programmed to count a number of startups of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and to request the permission to activate from the management device when the number of startups reaches a predetermined number. (see at least [0053] “When the number of start limits is exceeded, if the vehicle needs to be started again, the terminal will need to resend the start permission command”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the agricultural drone permission process of Wake to include the startup restriction disclosed in Ma, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the vehicle is being started for control by the intended user, see Ma [0053].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (JP 2020-144870 A), hereinafter Gong.
With respect to claim 8, Wake discloses the permission process for permitting a function of an agricultural drone, but does not explicitly disclose notifying the management device upon not giving permission on certain number of times.
However, Gong teaches the controller is configured or programmed to count a number of times activation was not permitted, and to notify the management device when the count reaches a predetermined number. (see at least [0326] “If the risk of interference to UAV communication meets or exceeds the risk threshold, a higher degree of authentication may be required… For example, a number of risk thresholds may be provided, and if each threshold is met and / or exceeded, an increased degree of authentication may be required.” [0357] “If the authentication is cleared, it may be displayed that the user identifier has been verified. If the authentication is not cleared, it may indicate… an attempt to authenticate with the user identifier has failed.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the agricultural drone permission process of Wake to include the authentication disclosed in Gong, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the UAV from the risk of interference using hacking/hijacking, see Gong [0325].
With respect to claim 9, Wake discloses the permission process for permitting a function of an agricultural drone, but does not explicitly disclose moving the drone to a new location after not giving permission.
However, Gong teaches the controller is configured or programmed, after notifying the management device, to move the unmanned aerial vehicle to a specified location in response to a command from the management device. (see at least [0256] “If the user and / or UAV do not clear the authentication, then response action can be taken. For example, a UAV can land after a predetermined period of time. In another case, the UAV may return to the starting point of the flight.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the agricultural drone permission process of Wake to include the authentication disclosed in Gong, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the UAV from the risk of interference using hacking/hijacking, see Gong [0325].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kominami et al. (US 2022/0258956 A1) discloses a discharge system that acquires permission information; and configured to limit or-enable discharge at the discharge drive unit according to the permission information.
Zhang et al. (WO 2020/113443 A1) discloses an agricultural plant protection unmanned aerial vehicle electrically in communication connection with a control terminal and connected to the flight controller, wherein the flight controller determines whether to enter into a locked state according to job information of a user; the control terminal sends instruction for the control mode to the flight controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights