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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-17 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11: as amended, claim 11 recites the limitation, “wherein each hinge mechanism is further configured to rigidly lock the respective rotor arm in the extended position such that any image capture devices coupled to the rotor arm maintain a fixed pose relative to the central body and to one another during and after deployment.”
While the specification describes the hinge mechanisms as configured to rigidly lock the respective rotor arm in the extended position such that any image capture devices coupled to the rotor arm maintain a fixed pose relative to the central body and to one another after deployment, there is no support in the originally filed specification for hinges being so configured such that any coupled image capture devices maintain a fixed pose during deployment.
The specification describes the rigid locking of the hinge mechanisms in paragraphs [0050], [0064]:
[0050] Notably, when in the extended state, each hinge mechanism 324a-b is configured to rigidly lock the respective rotor arm 319a-b in place such that any coupled image capture devices 314a-b do not substantially move relative to each other or to the central body 321 of the UAV 300. Preventing any substantial relative motion between the multiple image capture devices 314a-b is particularly important where the images taken from the devices 314a-b are used as perception inputs by an autonomous navigation system (e.g., autonomous navigation system 120) to guide the autonomous behavior of the UAV 300.
[0064] In some embodiments, each of the plurality of rotor arms further include an image capture device. In some embodiments, each hinge mechanism of the plurality of hinge mechanisms is further configured to rigidly lock the respective rotor arm in place such that the image capture devices do not substantially move relative to each other or to the central body.
[0068] In some embodiments, the UAV is configured in an operational configuration for flight when each of the plurality of rotor arms are in the extended position and in a non-operational collapsed configuration when each of the plurality of rotor arms are in the folded position. In some embodiments, in the non-operational collapsed configuration, an overall size and shape of the UAV is not substantially greater than the size and shape of the central body. In some embodiments, in the operational configuration for flight, each hinge mechanism of the plurality of hinge mechanisms is further configured to rigidly lock the respective rotor arm in place such that the image capture devices do not substantially move relative to each other or to the central body.
The specification in paragraph [0064] provides support for hinge mechanisms configured to rigidly lock the respective rotor arm such that any image capture device coupled to the rotor arm maintains a fixed pose after deployment, but does not address a fixed pose during deployment. The UAV is not disclosed to be in flight during deployment of the rotor arms from the non-operational collapsed configuration to the extended operational configuration, and it is unclear how an image capture device mounted to the arm could maintain a fixed pose while the arm is rotating about an oblique axis of rotation such as shown in fig. 3E or figs. 3L-3O, with intermediate mid-deployment positions such as state 391c.
Claims 11-17 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for hinge mechanism configured to rigidly lock a respective rotor arm in the extended position such that any image capture devices coupled to the rotor arm maintain a fixed pose relative to the central body and to one another after deployment, does not reasonably provide enablement for a hinge mechanism so configured to maintain the fixed pose during deployment. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In order for an image capture device to maintain a fixed pose with respect to the central body during deployment, the rotor arm would have to move during deployment in such a way that the image capture device pose remains fixed with respect to the central body. This would be possible if the image capture device were mounted at a stationary location such as the pivot axis, however the claim requires each the image capture device to be at a distal end of the respective rotor arm and each hinge mechanism to couple a proximal end of the rotor arm to the central body. With a rotor arm coupled by the proximal end to the central body with a hinge mechanism configured to rotate the rotor arm about an axis, the distal end of the rotor arm will move relative to the central body. This is consistent with the deployment stages shown figs. 3L-3O, where the distal ends do not maintain a fixed position or orientation with respect to the central body or one another.
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 11-17 and 22-24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 11, 23 and 24: in the limitation of the last paragraph of the claim, it is unclear how rigidly locking the rotor arms in the extended position will maintain a fixed pose between image capture devices coupled to the rotor arm and the central body during deployment, that is, before the arm reaches the extended position to be rigidly locked.
Regarding claims 12-17: these claims are rejected for incorporating the indefinite limitations of a claim from which they depend.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed December 3, 2025, with respect to claims 11, 23 and 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 and 22-24 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st and 2nd paragraphs, set forth in this Office action.
US 10,710,701 B2 to Tian et al. teaches rotor arms which fold about oblique axes and lock with a mating interface, however the hinges are designed to fold with the rotors staggered to save space (c. 8, ℓ. 34-54), which would not be readily applicable to the rotors in US 2019/0329903 A1 to Thompson, which face in opposite directions when extended and would accordingly overlap using the teachings of Tian.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647