DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims dated 08/13/2025 are being examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 recites “the first UAV” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what “the first UAV” is referring to, and/or if this should be dependent on claim 4 which is when “the first UAV” is introduced, rendering the claim unclear.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Claim 1) A processor-implemented method for generating a coverage path planning (CPP) for a plurality of Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) with nadir gaps, wherein the method comprises:
receiving input from a user through a user device that is communicatively connected to the central server through a network, wherein the input comprises an area of interest, a count of the plurality of AUVs, a respective starting point of the plurality of AUVs, and an operational constraint;
generating, using a pair of lines method, a path with a nadir gap based on the area of interest, wherein the path comprises a plurality of waypoints on a two-dimensional (2D) plane;
determining a path planning method from a plurality of path planning methods based on an operational priority and the starting point of the plurality of AUVs;
generating the CPP for the plurality of AUVs by dividing the path into a plurality of segments by applying the determined path planning method on the path based on the starting point of the plurality of AUVs, thereby each segment is assigned to each AUV; and
transmitting the generated CPP to the plurality of AUVs that are communicatively connected to the central server through the network.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind, AND/OR, consistent with Applicant’s specification describing these operations as algorithmic steps involving mathematical expressions, the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mathematical concepts” – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses mathematical equations and calculations.
The steps of “generating…”, “determining…”, and “generating…”, in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation as to generate a CPP based on known inputs. Additionally, consistent with Applicant’s specification describing these operations as algorithmic steps involving mathematical expressions, the generation, division, and allocation/optimization of paths involves mathematical relationships and calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding, the additional limitations of “processor-implemented…”, the processor is a generic computer component and also acts merely as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The additional limitations of “receiving…”, amounts to mere data gathering for use in the generating step. It has been held that limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05.
The additional limitations of “transmitting…”, amounts to insignificant post-solution activity. Mere transmission of data over networks and/or mere displaying/alerting/notifying are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Regarding the computer elements:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of a processor in the claim amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding the data gathering steps:
It has been determined that such limitations are conventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Regarding the insignificant post solution activity steps:
Examples of insignificant post-solution activities can include merely displaying a result (e.g., output) on a display device, merely communicating a message based on the result, merely recording the result in a memory storage device, and the like. Adding a final step of transmitting collected/analyzed information to a process that recites an abstract idea does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function, and as recited above the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 substantially recite the same limitations as the representative independent method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed above. Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, specifically only reciting/elaborating on the additional activities that may (1) also be reasonably performed in the human mind as to generate a CPP and/or (2) invoke mathematical concepts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are the following:
Li et al., “Multi-AUV coverage path planning algorithm using side-scan sonar for maritime search, Ocean Engineering”, Volume 300, 2024, 117396, ISSN 0029-8018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.117396.
Christ et al. (US-20240116610-A1)
Wang et al. (CN-118035326-A)
Yordanova et al. ("Coverage Path Planning With Track Spacing Adaptation for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles," in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4774-4780, July 2020, doi: 10.1109/LRA.2020.3003886.)
Yordanova et al. ("Coverage Path Planning for Mine Countermeasures: Adapting Track Orientation," OCEANS 2019 - Marseille, Marseille, France, 2019, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/OCEANSE.2019.8867065.)
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically the claimed coverage path planning method applied for a plurality of Autonomous underwater vehicles.
Li et al. teaches a processor-implemented method for generating a coverage path planning (CPP) for a plurality of Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) with nadir gaps, wherein the method comprises (Abstract: we propose an effective and rapid multi-autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) coverage path planning (ER-MCPP) algorithm using side-scan sonar (SSS)):
[…] determining a path planning method from a plurality of path planning methods (ER-MCPP algorithm is determined and Abstract: “compared with other methods, our algorithm has better robustness, finds targets more rapidly, and has a higher search efficiency”)
based on an operational priority (Section 2.5 Goal of the task and Section 3.3.1. Path Planning: “In addition, a and b indicate the priorities of search efficiency and data quality, respectively, and can be selected according to the actual task requirements”)
and the starting point of the plurality of AUVs (Section 3.3.3. Path Tracking: Let the remaining path points be {P0,P1,⋯,Pm}. (Pis,Pie) denotes the start and end points of the i section);
generating the CPP for the plurality of AUVs by dividing the path into a plurality of segments by applying the determined path planning method on the path based on the starting point of the plurality of AUVs, thereby each segment is assigned to each AUV; and transmitting the generated CPP to the plurality of AUVs (Section 2.1. Environmental modeling and regional allocation: The allocation problem involves dividing the whole region Ω into Nsa subregions and allocating them to NA AUVs)
Li et al. does not explicitly teach: receiving input from a user through a user device that ais communicatively connected to the central server through a network, wherein the input comprises an area of interest, a count of the plurality of AUVs, a respective starting point of the plurality of AUVs, and an operational constraint.
Christ et al. teaches receiving input from a user through a user device ([0149] An HSV may also include operator stations that may be manned to control, e.g., navigation, telemetry, and general operation of the USVs and the AUVs. These stations may include control console GUIs that include pictorial graphics for human interpretation of the status of each vehicle as well as each vehicle's current location. In general, the HSV is preferably properly equipped and manned to control, operate and maintain all of the functionalities of the USVs and the AUVs as required by each mission)
Wang et al. teaches a central server ([0008] The information relay server is used to centrally store, process, and transmit data collected by the underwater unmanned vehicle cluster).
Li et al., Christ et al., and Wang et al, do not explicitly address the challenge of nadir gaps, so the combination does not explicitly teach: generating, using a pair of lines method, a path with a nadir gap based on the area of interest, wherein the path comprises a plurality of waypoints on a two-dimensional (2D) plane.
Yordanova et al. ("Coverage Path Planning With Track Spacing Adaptation for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles," in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4774-4780, July 2020, doi: 10.1109/LRA.2020.3003886.) and Yordanova et al. ("Coverage Path Planning for Mine Countermeasures: Adapting Track Orientation," OCEANS 2019 - Marseille, Marseille, France, 2019, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/OCEANSE.2019.8867065.) addresses the challenge of nadir gaps, but these approaches apply the coverage path planning (CPP) for only a single vehicle. Applicant’s specification [0003] discloses that “CPP has been extensively studied for single AUV operations” but there has been a lack of solutions specifically addressing CPP for multi-AUV operations, particularly in the presence of nadir gaps”. Applicant’s claimed invention addresses CPP for multi-AUV operations, and none of the cited closest prior arts in combination disclose all the features of the claimed invention. The dependent claims would be allowable based on their dependence to the independent claim. Independent claim 13 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See prior arts 1-5 above and their reasonings
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
