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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant asserts “the cited art does not teach or suggest at least the following features recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added): "a command circuit configured to deliver a landing command to the UAV when power on the cable falls below a threshold value.”
¶ [0056-0058] of Stigler specifically teaches that the UAV may undeploy (i.e. land) in response to signals during dangerous conditions by sensors that measure the environmental data of the UAV. Stigler defines the environmental data as including "mean power consumption of the autonomous vehicle 12 for 30 seconds, one minute, 10 minutes, or an entire mission, remaining autonomous vehicle 12 battery charge”. Examiner asserts that command signals sent to land a vehicle due to dangerous conditions pertaining to power consumption and battery charge satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a command circuit configured to deliver a landing command to the UAV when power on the cable falls below a threshold value". As such, the combination of Walker and Stigler satisfies the claimed limitations and warrants rejection under 35 USC 103.
Applicant asserts “the cited art does not teach or suggest … a controller [...], cause the controller to control the drum actuator to maintain a determined tension on the cable while: dispensing the cable; holding the cable steady; or collecting the cable.”
Examiner cited ¶ [0044-0055] of Walker pertaining to these limitations.
Per ¶ [0044] of Walker: “[0044] The position sensor 227 measures an exit geometry (e.g., a position) of the filament 106 at the point where the filament 106 exits the spooling apparatus 112. The measured position of the filament 106 is then used to determine the exit angle, .theta..sub.E 214 of the filament 106. The exit angle, .theta..sub.E 214 is passed from the position sensor 227 to the control system 228” (emphasis added).
Per ¶ [0046] of Walker: “[0046] In some examples, the control system receives the exit angle, .theta..sub.E 214, the set-point, .theta..sub.O 220, and the measured tension, T 229 as inputs and applies a control algorithm to the inputs to determine a control signal output, Cmd 232. The control signal output, Cmd 232 is passed to the spool 224 and/or to the feeder/tension sensor 226 and actuates the spool 224 and/or the feeder/tension sensor 226 to maintain the exit angle, .theta..sub.E 214 of the filament 106 at the set-point, .theta..sub.O 220. In some examples, a filament feeding mechanism (e.g. pinch rollers) in the feeder/tension sensor 226 receives the Cmd 232 input and which causes the filament feeding mechanism to vary a speed and direction of filament feeding based on the exit angle, .theta..sub.E 214. For example, if the sensed exit angle, .theta..sub.E 214 is below the setpoint, .theta..sub.O 220 the filament feeding mechanism receives a value of Cmd 232 which causes the filament feeding mechanism to re-spool filament at a commanded speed. Conversely, if the sensed exit angle, .theta..sub.E 214 is above the setpoint, .theta..sub.O 220 the filament feeding mechanism receives a value of Cmd 232 which causes the filament feeding mechanism to deploy filament at a commanded speed. (emphasis added).
Examiner asserts that controller that controls the drum actuation based on tension sensor measurements and exit angles to control the speed, feeding, and re-spooling of the filament satisfies the claimed limitations inasmuch as applicant has claimed. As such, the combination of Walker and Stigler satisfies the claimed limitations and warrants rejection under 35 USC 103.
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(s) 1-4, 6, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 20170008626 A1) in view of Stigler et al (US 20160200235 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a device comprising: a drum (spool element 224) rotatably mounted on a carriage (element 112, ¶ [0040]); a cable (element 106) configured to: transport power (¶ [0029]); connect with a drum connector disposed on the drum (Figures 2-3 and 6 depict a plurality of connectors in connection to and disposed on the drum inasmuch as applicant has claimed. ¶ [0058]); and connect with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) via a UAV connector (Figure 3, ¶[0069-0078]); a drum actuator configured to rotate the drum (¶ [0040]); a command circuit configured to deliver a landing command (abstract. ¶ [0030-0031, 0047]); a UAV feed (Figure 4. element 230) configured to align the cable as it exits the device towards the UAV ( as explained in ¶ [0046]); and a controller (element 228) comprising: at least one processor (element 223); a tangible medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to: receive a tension measurement (¶ [0044]); and control the drum actuator to maintain a determined tension on the cable (¶ [0044-0055]) while: dispensing the cable (abstract. ¶ [0047, 0053-0055]); holding the cable steady (abstract. ¶ [0047, 0053-0055]); or collecting the cable (abstract. ¶ [0047, 0053-0055]); and autonomously control the drum actuator (¶ [0040, 0050-0051]) when a landing command is delivered to the UAV and the cable is being collected (abstract teaches controller controlling feeding mechanism for deploying and retracting filament). Walker fails to specifically teach the command circuit configured to deliver a landing command to the UAV when power on the cable falls below a threshold value. However, use of control systems and sensors to deliver re-deployment commands such that tethered UAVs may be automatically retrieved via their winch systems are well known in the art as is evidenced by the abstract and [0056-0058] of Stigler. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date to incorporate Stigler’s method of UAV retrieval/re-deployment into the tethered UAV of Walker, in order to provide a failsafe system to land the aircraft in unfavorable environmental conditions (as taught by Stigler).
Regarding claim 2, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a power transfer circuit configured to deliver power to the UAV from a battery (¶ [0029] of Walker) when power on the cable falls below a threshold value (¶ [0076] of Walker).
Regarding claim 3, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the power transfer circuit is connected to the UAV connector (¶[0069-0078] of Walker).
Regarding claim 4, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a remote UAV power supply configured to provide power to the UAV via the cable (¶ [0029] of Walker).
Regarding claim 6, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a command circuit configured to deliver a landing command to the UAV when power on the cable falls below a first threshold value and the power available on a UAV battery falls below a second threshold value (¶[0056-0058] of Stigler).
Regarding claim 9, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprises a motor controller (¶ [0040, 0050-0051] of Walker) and wherein: the drum actuator is a motor (¶ [0040] of Walker); and the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to control the motor via the motor controller (¶ [0040, 0050-0051] of Walker).
Regarding claim 10, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 9, wherein the cable is further configured to transport a control signal (¶ [0029] of Walker).
Regarding claim 11, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a cable drum feed configured to align the cable to the drum (Figure 6. ¶ [0058-0060] of Walker).
Regarding claim 12, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 11, wherein the cable drum feed comprises: a linear actuator configured to be controlled by the controller (Figure 6. ¶ [0039-0048, 0058-0060] of Walker. “laterally moving a level winder back and forth from one end of the spool to the other” satisfies the limitation of a linear actuator); and a tether spooling pulley connected to a linear actuator (Figure 6. ¶ [0058-0060] of Walker).
Regarding claim 13, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 12, but fails to specifically teach wherein the linear actuator comprises a lead screw rotatable by a lead screw actuator. However, Examiner took Official Notice on Page 5 of Office Action dated 8/8/2025 that Leadscrews were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date as a linear actuator used in positioning mechanisms that comprises a screw used as a linkage in a machine to convert turning motion into linear motion. Actuators connected to lead screws may comprise stepper motors (See Wikipedia- leadscrew NPL for extrinsic supporting evidence). The applicant’s failure to successfully traverse the official notice renders such notice admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to specify that the actuator that facilitated Walker’s laterally moving level winder moving back and forth was a lead screw with a stepper motor.
Regarding claim 14, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 13, wherein the lead screw actuator comprises at least one of: a stepper motor; a servo motor; a solenoid; and a switch (see cited response to claim 13).
Regarding claim 15, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 14, wherein the tension is measured between the cable drum feed and the UAV feed (Figure 3, element 226. ¶ [0039-0048] of Walker).
Regarding claim 16, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising an alignment pulley configured to align the cable between the drum and the UAV feed (Figures 3 and 6 of Walker).
Regarding claim 17, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the UAV feed comprises a pulley (Figure 4 of Walker).
Regarding claim 19, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising: a tension sensor configured to measure the tension of the cable, wherein the tension sensor comprises at least one of: a load cell; a strain gage transducer; a tension sensing roller (Figure 6 of Walker); a piezo electric crystal; and an angle sensor (Figure 4 of Walker).
Regarding claim 20, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the cable comprises at least one of: an electrical cable (¶ [0029] of Walker); an optical cable (¶ [0069] of Walker); and a coaxial cable (¶ [0029, 0071] of Walker).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 20170008626 A1) in view of Stigler et al (US 20160200235 A1), in further view of Dolivet (FR 2701919 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Walker in view of Stigler teaches the invention in claim 17, but fails to specifically teach wherein the UAV feed comprises a damper. However, the use of mass-spring-damper systems within tethered aircraft system feed pulleys to stabilize oscillation are well known in the art as is evidenced by Figure 2, elements 154 and 153 (Col. 8, lines 26-30) of Dolivet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Walker’s tether system with the mass-spring-damper system found in Dolivet, in order to stabilize oscillations present whilst deploying and/or re-deploying the tether.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday: 0500-1400, Thursday-Friday by appointment only.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights