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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 28, 2025, amended August 15, 2025. Claims 2-21 are pending. Claim 1 is canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 begins “he apparatus”, which appears to be intended as “The apparatus”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein aerial robot of the one or more aerial robots, the apparatus is caused to:”. This appears to be a typographical error in editing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the aerial robot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 previously introduced “one or more aerial robots” and later made secondary reference to “the one or more aerial robots”.
Claims 3-8 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a respective maneuver”. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, which previously introduced the limitation “a respective maneuver” and made secondary reference to “the respective maneuver”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same respective maneuver.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a parent-child relationship”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “parent-child relationship” in claim 6 is used by the claim to mean “preceding and following” while the accepted meaning is “parent and child”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the child node”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 2. The limitation “a parent-child relationship” was introduced in claim 6. No “child node” was ever introduced.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the parent node”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 2. The limitation “a parent-child relationship” was introduced in claim 6. No “parent node” was ever introduced.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the aerial robot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 previously introduced “one or more aerial robots” and later made secondary reference to “the one or more aerial robots”.
Claims 10-15 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the one or more failures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11, which introduced “a failure”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the alternate task to be executed in place of the next selected task when the contingency event occurs during execution of the selected task”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 9, which introduced “an alternative task, of the set of tasks, to be selected when the selected task cannot be successfully executed” and made secondary reference to “the alternative task”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the alternate task”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 9, which introduced “an alternative task” and made secondary reference to “the alternative task”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the others of the tasks”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 9, which introduced “other tasks of the set of tasks”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the next task”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 9, which introduced “a next selected task”. Claim 13 twice makes secondary reference to “the next selected task”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the alternate task”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 14 is dependent on claim 9, which introduced “an alternative task”, and made secondary reference to “the alternative task”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “signaling, based on the switch node being signaled, the trigger node to cause the trigger node”. Claim 15 is dependent on claim 9, which introduced that the trigger node was signaled by the switch node and the switch node signals a next action node of the action nodes. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what is signaling the switch node.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a respective maneuver”. Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16, which previously introduced “respective maneuvers”, and “a respective maneuver” and made secondary reference to “the respective maneuvers”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same respective maneuvers.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the tasks represented by the action nodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 19 is dependent on claim 16, which introduced “tasks that are executable” and “action nodes represent other tasks of the set of tasks”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16, 18 and 20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The published application of the present invention is cited. An issued patent of a publication cited in the IDS is cited here. A related patent issued to the Applicant is cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights