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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 08/11/2025. The Applicant has amended claims 44, 45, 49 – 52, 54, 59 – 61, and 63. No claims were cancelled and no new claims or new subject matter has been added. Claims 44 – 63 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/11/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the Claim Objections and 35 USC §112, §101 and Statutory Double Patenting rejections set forth in the 04/10/2025 Office Action, however, new grounds for rejection have been introduced and are detailed below. Claims 44 – 63 remain pending in the application.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments (see Arguments/Remarks, filed 08/11/2025) with respect to claim rejections under Nonstatutory Double Patenting have been fully considered but, respectfully, are not persuasive.
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See Double Patenting below.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments (see Arguments/Remarks, filed 08/11/2025) with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but, respectfully, are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “Claims 44, 59, 61, and 63 have been amended to add that the payload controller and drone controller are coupled. This amendment supplies a feature in claim 44 are not found in the cited art. Desaulniers in light of Sikora lacks the following elements of the above claims: 1. A drone controller the identifies an active-payload. 2. A drone controller that selects a control where there are DOF for the drone controller to execute and released DOF for a payload controller. 3. A drone controller that is coupled to a payload controller.”, and, “The references allow the payload controller to communicate sensor information, but does not provide for a way for the drone controller to select a control that affects the payload controller. Thus, the coupling amendment is not obvious over the combination of references.”, the Examiner, respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits that the combination of Art discloses all claim limitations as detailed in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section below.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “The modification by Sikora would destroy the amphibious character of Desaulniers.”, the Examiner, respectfully disagrees.
Sikora’s invention discloses, in at least [¶0011, 0045], “The current invention proposes the use of a vertical take-off and landing gyropendular compensatory propulsion and fluidic gradient collimation, multi-media, multimodal craft platform, based on the concept of vertical takeoff and landing amphibious gyropendular drone, characterized in that it has: [], 2) an upper and lower propulsion group device of the following type: electric, thermal engines, micro turbines, turbines, turbo gas propulsors or reactors, equipped with a rotating wing or not, or a number of stand-alone or contra-rotating propellers, with curved blades or not, or rotary gas nozzles or not, or finned, turbine vanes, or turboprops, turbojets, or helical turbine []or not, in order to bring the craft platform or the drone to a certain altitude or depth and keep it in sustentation in air or floating in water, in submerged mode or not, or in gravitational fields or weightless space, [] enabling the platform to modify in real-time its geometry during the flight and to adapt the position of its centre of gravity, according to the context defined by abrupt and strong intensity changes of the fluidic navigation support: air, or water or the empty space as the case may be, all ensuring take-off and navigation air, marine, underwater or outer space, according to a specific flight path, then ground-landing, or sea-landing, or vessel deck landing, or achievement of a geostationary orbit or not, or moon landing, or landing on a star or a planet, as well as the stability of the craft platform or the drone and its payload.”, “In reference to these drawings, the multimodal, multi-media, gyropendular craft platform, object of the invention, represented (FIG. 18), has a variant of amphibious gyropendular drone (FIG. 1), which enables taking-off (or landing) vertically and then to progress according to the three-axis based on a specific flight trajectory, without changing if necessary the lower tray's attitude (3) hosting the cockpit (4) of the payload (5) that integrates the other navigation and stabilization control devices (19), synchronization (20), detection and interception (21), and telecommunications (23). The vertical ascent of the drone is provided by the thrust produced by the upper propulsion group (1) and lower propulsion group (7), of the following types: motor propeller (10) or turbine (10), or helical turbine (10), or turbojet with rotary gas nozzles (10), or turboprop, or rocket engine.”.
The invention describes a multi-mode craft capable of air, water, or space navigation, “air, or water or the empty space as the case may be”, but not limited to one or any combination of navigational modes. Therefore, Sikora’s invention discloses the appropriate limitations and does not “destroy” the amphibious character of Desaulniers.
Claim Objections
Claim 63 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Line 11, “wherein each of the control defines” should read “wherein each of the controls defines…”. 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.
Claims 49-50 and 63 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 49-50, it is unclear what “a request for changing control message” covers and encompasses, as it can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, e.g., “a request for changing [a] control message” or a “message request” for “changing control”. What is the definition of “control message? Further, In the case of “changing control”, what is the control being changed, a control method or command, or control rules and thresholds, etc.? For these reasons, Claim 49 is rejected as indefinite, and Claim 50 is rendered indefinite by its dependency on indefinite claim 49.
Claim 63 discloses “identifying by a drone controller coupled to the payload controller of a current active payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone; and
selecting by the drone controller of a control from a predefined list of controls”, which are grammatically incorrect and not clear what they are referring to, therefore, indefinite.
By the wording of these limitations, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what is being “identified by a drone controller”, or, what is being “selected by the drone controller”. For these reasons, Claim 63 is rejected as indefinite.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 44 – 56, 60, and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11687100 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 44 discloses “A system, comprising:
a drone, which is an aircraft that is able to hover;
an active-payload carried by the drone, which comprises a self-embedded payload controller and at least one thrust source and/or moving weight;
a drone controller coupled to the payload controller, the drone controller identifies a current active payload that is temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and selects a control from a predefined list of controls; wherein each of the controls defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active- payload; and
wherein when performing the one or more tasks with the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions in drone controlled DOFs and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions in the released DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the at least one thrust source and/or moving weight.”, while
US 11687100 B2 Claim 19 discloses “A system, comprising:
a drone, which is an aircraft that is able to hover;
an active-payload carried by the drone, which comprises a self-embedded payload controller and at least one thrust source and/or moving weight;
a drone controller, which identifies a current active payload type temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and selects a control-type from a predefined list of control types; wherein each of the control-types defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload type and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active-payload; and
wherein when performing the one or more tasks with the drone and the current active- payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions in drone controlled DOFs and simultaneously and asynchronously the payload controller controls maneuver instructions in the released DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the at least one thrust source and/or moving weight.”
Claim 45 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein for each control, the drone controller sets predefined or changeable values of physical parameters defining the control rules and thresholds of use for each drone controller controlled DOFs and for each of the released DOFs.” while US 11687100 Claim 2 discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: for each control-type, setting predefined or changeable values of physical parameters defining the control rules and thresholds of use for each drone controller controlled DOF and for each released DOF.”
Claim 46 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein the active- payload is temporarily and detachably coupled to one or more docking points selected from a final set of defined docking points. ” while US 11687100 Claim 4 discloses “The method of claim 1,” subsequently reciting substantially the same limitations as claim 46 above.
Claim 47 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein the drone controller aligns coordinates of the drone and the current active-payload by performing a calibration flight with a predefined route selected from a list of routes or by a stationary hovering, using inertial or rate sensors or direction-finding sensors that are installed on the drone and on the payload.” while US 11687100 Claim 5 discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: aligning coordinates of the drone and the current active-payload by performing a calibration flight with a predefined route selected from a list of routes or by a stationary hovering, using inertial or rate sensors or direction-finding sensors that are installed on the drone and on the payload.”
Claim 48 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein the maneuver instructions are selected from a list of maneuver instructions.” while US 11687100 Claim 6 discloses “The method of claim 1,” subsequently reciting substantially the same limitations as claim 48 above.
Claim 49 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein a communication protocol between the drone controller and the payload controller is defined;
wherein messages from the drone controller to the payload controller comprises at least one member of the following list:
the predefined list of controls;
forces, imbalances and loads for each one or more docking point that the current active-payload is not allowed to violate;
a predefined list of controls available for the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone;
values of physical parameters defining control rules and thresholds of use for each control;
values of physical parameters defining control rules and thresholds of use for each DOF and released DOF;
a list of calibration routes;
a stop or slow-down commands, attached to a relevant released DOF controlled by the payload controller;
boundaries and limits for the defined released DOFs controlled by the payload controller; and
an in and/or out of boundaries flag message; and
wherein messages from the payload controller to the drone controller comprises at least one member of the following list:
the current active-payload weight, center of gravity relative to one or more docking points of the current active-payload and DOFs available to be controlled by the payload controller;
parameters stating releasable DOFs with a maximal thrust and/or imbalance that is allowed to be exerted in each of the released DOFs controlled by the active-payload;
a position or orientation changing request message;
parameters setting of drone control rules and thresholds message; and
a request for changing control message.”
US 11687100 Claim 8 discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising defining a communication protocol between the drone controller and the payload controller;”, subsequently reciting substantially the same limitations as claim 49 above.
Claim 50 discloses “The system of claim 49, wherein when an out of boundaries flag message is sent from the drone controller to the payload controller, the drone controller takes control over the released DOFs, so that the drone controller controls all six DOFs of the drone until the drone and the current active-payload are in an in-boundary area.” while US 11687100 Claim 9 discloses “The method of claim 8,” subsequently reciting substantially the same limitations as claim 50 above.
Claim 51 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein the control defined automatically by a data communication interface between the drone controller and the payload controller or manually, by a remote controlling the drone.” while US 11687100 Claims 10 and 7 disclose, respectively, (10) ”The method of claim 1, wherein the control-type is defined automatically by a data communication interface between the drone controller and the payload controller.” and (7) “The method of claim 1, wherein the control-type is defined manually, by a remote controlling the drone.”
Claim 52 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein the drone controller changes between different controls from the predefined list of control for performing different one or more tasks, by the drone and the current active- payload.” while US 11687100 Claim 11 discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising:” subsequently reciting substantially the same limitations as claim 52 above.
Claim 53 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein: maneuvers performed by the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone are recognized by the drone controller using inertial and rate sensors installed in the drone, and maneuvers are performed in response by the drone; and / or
maneuvers made by the drone are recognized by the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, by one or more inertial and rate sensors installed in the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and maneuvers are performed by the current active-payload in response. ”.
US 11687100 Claim 12 discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
recognizing maneuvers performed by the current active payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone by inertial and rate sensors installed in the drone, and
performing maneuvers in response by the drone; and / or
recognizing by the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, maneuvers made by the drone, by one or more inertial and rate sensors installed in the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and performing maneuvers by the current active-payload in response.”
Claim 54 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein the selected control defines at least one of:
the payload controller controls the released DOFs independently from the drone controller and the released DOFs are controlled by the payload controller and are supervised by the drone controller.” while US 11687100 Claims 13 and 14 disclose, respectively, (13) ”The method of claim 1, wherein the selected control-type defines that the payload controller controls the released DOFs independently from the drone controller.” and (14) “The method of claim 1, wherein the selected control-type defines that the released DOFs are controlled by the payload controller and are supervised by the drone controller.”
Claim 55 discloses “The system of claim 54, wherein the drone controller takes control over the released DOFs to control maneuver instructions in the released DOF; wherein in a communication between the drone controller and the payload controller and the drone controller at least one of the following is performed:
a stop message to the payload controller is sent to stop controlling the released DOFs by the payload controller and to control the released DOFs by the drone controller; and
a slow-down message attached to a relevant released DOF controlled by the payload controller. ”
US 11687100 Claims 15 thru 17 disclose (15) “The method of claim 14, wherein the drone controller takes control over the released DOFs to control maneuver instructions in the released DOFs.”, (16) “The method of claim 15, wherein there is a communication protocol between the drone controller and the payload controller, and the drone controller sends a stop message to the payload controller to stop controlling the released DOFs by the payload controller and to control the released DOFs by the drone controller.” and (17) “The method of claim 15, wherein there is a communication protocol between the drone controller and the payload controller, and the drone controller sends to the payload controller a slow-down message attached to a relevant released DOF controlled by the payload controller.”
Claim 56 discloses “The system of claim 44, wherein the drone is operated by an operator, that uses a remote-control station or by a remote autonomous Command and Control Operation System; and the current active-payload is operated by a second operator the-that uses a second control station or a remote.” while US 11687100 Claim 18 discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the drone is operated by an operator, that uses a remote-control station or by a remote autonomous Command and Control Operation System; and the current active-payload is operated by a second operator that uses a second remote control station or a remote Command and Control Operation System.”
Claim 60 discloses “The drone of claim 59, wherein the drone controller defines values of physical parameters defining control rules and thresholds of use for each released DOF and for every control.” while US 11687100 Claim 3 discloses “ The method of claim 2, wherein the values of physical parameters defining the thresholds for each released DOF contains maximal and / or minimal values.”.
Claim 63 discloses “A method of using a controller for controlling a drone, provided a system, comprising:
hovering a drone aircraft;
carrying an active-payload by the drone, the active-payload comprises a self-embedded payload controller and at least one thrust source and/or moving weight;
identifying by a drone controller coupled to the payload controller of a current active payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone; and
selecting by the drone controller of a control from a predefined list of controls; wherein each of the control defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active-payload; and
wherein when performing the one or more tasks with the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions in drone controlled DOFs and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions in the released DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the at least one thrust source and/or moving weight.”
US 11687100 Claim 1 discloses “A method for distributing a control over a drone carrying an active- payload, wherein the drone is an aircraft that is able to hover and the active-payload comprises a self-embedded payload controller and at least one thrust source and/or moving weight, to a drone controller and the payload controller, comprising:
identifying by the drone controller a current active-payload type of the active- payload, temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone;
selecting by the drone controller a control-type from a predefined list of control-types; wherein each of the control-types defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload type and according to one or more tasks planned to be performed by the drone and the current active-payload;
performing the one or more tasks by the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone; wherein the drone controller controls maneuver instructions in drone controller controlled DOFs and simultaneously and asynchronously the payload controller controls maneuver instructions in the released DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs by the at least one thrust source and/or moving weight.”.
For the reasons discussed above, Claims 44 – 56, 60, and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11687100 B2.
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.
Claims 44 – 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130206915 Desaulniers (Desaulniers hereafter) in view of US 20200231415 Sikora et al. (Sikora hereafter).
Regarding claim 44, Desaulniers discloses A system, comprising:
a drone (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011], “the craft platform or the drone”), which is an aircraft that is able to hover (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011], “keep it in sustentation in air”);
an active-payload carried by the drone (see at least Desaulniers [Fig.1 lower tray (3), payload cockpit (4), payload (5)]) which comprises a self-embedded payload controller (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011, 0045], “programmable logic type component type housed in the payload”) and at least one thrust source and/or moving weight (see at least Desaulniers [¶0045, Fig.1], “The lateral bodies (6) connect the lower propulsion group (7) to the lower tray (3)”);
Desaulniers does not explicitly disclose: a drone controller coupled to the payload controller, the drone controller identifies a current active payload that is temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and selects a control from a predefined list of controls; wherein each of the controls defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active- payload; and
wherein when performing the one or more tasks with the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions in drone controlled DOFs and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions in the released DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the at least one thrust source and/or moving weight.
However, Sikora, directed towards integrated suspended load control apparatuses, systems, and methods, discloses a drone controller coupled to the payload controller (see at least Sikora [¶0157-0158], “Obstacle avoidance module 3800 and/or decision and thrust control module 1800 may be active and, in conjunction with operational module 1700 and decision and thrust control module 1800, may instruct SLCS secured to load 2807 to rotate the load so as to reduce the proximity of the SLCS' to obstacle 2805 or to negotiate the load relative to obstacle 2805.”, i.e., bi-directional communication between drone and payload controllers, or communicational coupling of the controllers.), the drone controller identifies a current active payload that is temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and selects a control from a predefined list of controls; wherein each of the controls defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active- payload (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”); and
wherein when performing the one or more tasks with the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions in drone controlled DOFs and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions in the released DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the at least one thrust source and/or moving weight (see at least Sikora [¶0057], “a suspended load control system provides control of a load, independent from a carrier. The suspended load control system or load stability system (referred to together as, “SLCS”) of this disclosure controls a load by exerting force from thrusters, fans, or propellers, as are found in electric ducted fans at, or near, the location of the load. [] Vector thrust force produced by the EDFs may be used to counteract yaw and pendular motion, may be used to translate a load horizontally, such as to avoid an obstacle or to move a load into an offset position relative to a normal lowest-energy hanging position, or may otherwise be used to control the fine location and yaw of a load, independently from the carrier.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Sikora to modify Desaulniers, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of a drone controller coupled to the payload controller, identifying a current active payload, selecting a control that defines degrees of freedom to be controlled by the drone controller and the payload controller, and controlling maneuver instructions in drone and payload controlled DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque with at least one thrust source and/or moving weight . For the purpose of improving management of loads and carriers by having the load moved independently from the carrier, including horizontal translation, pendular motion, and yaw control. Drone operators may use legacy equipment that would benefit from independent load control (see at least Sikora [¶0007, 0008]).
Regarding claim 45, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein for each control, the drone controller sets predefined or changeable values of physical parameters defining the control rules and thresholds of use for each drone controller controlled DOFs and for each of the released DOFs (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”).
Regarding claim 46, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein the active-payload is temporarily and detachably coupled to one or more docking points selected from a final set of defined docking points (see at least Sikora [¶0060], “An SLCS may be releasably secured to an existing structure designed to hold other loads, such as litters, cages, platforms, or the like”).
Regarding claim 47, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein the drone controller aligns coordinates of the drone and the current active-payload by performing a calibration flight with a predefined route selected from a list of routes or by a stationary hovering, using inertial or rate sensors or direction-finding sensors that are installed on the drone and on the payload (see at least Sikora [¶0075, 0112, Fig.17], “[0075] SLCS 111 may comprise or be communicatively coupled to one or more sensors in addition to the IMU. Such additional sensors may comprise, for example, an inertial measurement system, an orientation measurement system, and an absolute position measurement system.”, “[0112] In block 1710, the suspended load control system (“SLCS”) in the apparatus may be started up and operational module 1700 activated.[] During block 1710, operational module 1700 may determine a relative orientation of fan units which operational module 1700 is to control. This determination may be based on sensor information from the fan units, such as a compass heading sampled from each fan unit.”).
Regarding claim 48, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein the maneuver instructions are selected from a list of maneuver instructions (see at least Sikora [¶0110], “FIG. 17 illustrates an example of operational module 1700 of a suspended load control system (“SLCS”) including multiple mode or command state modules in accordance with one embodiment. Instructions of, or which embody, decision and operational module 1700 may be stored in, for example, memory 1625”).
Regarding claim 49, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination further disclose wherein a communication protocol between the drone controller and the payload controller is defined (see at least Sikora [¶0076], “This information may be communicated to remote devices by the SLCS processor, via a data link cable and/or the wireless transceiver.”);
wherein messages from the drone controller to the payload controller comprises at least one member of the following list:
the predefined list of controls (see at least Desaulniers [¶0049], “the displacement management in tri-dimensional space according to a specific flight plan or a trajectory that may be pre-programmed (i.e., angular rotation or tilting or pivoting by discrete jumps in degrees or quadrant, stand-alone procedure and avoidance of obstacles or stall or spiral loop).”);
forces, imbalances and loads for each one or more docking point that the current active-payload is not allowed to violate (see at least Sikora [¶0060], “An SLCS may be releasably secured to an existing structure designed to hold other loads, such as litters, cages, platforms, or the like”);
a predefined list of controls available for the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone (see at least Desaulniers [¶0049], above);
values of physical parameters defining control rules and thresholds of use for each control (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”);
values of physical parameters defining control rules and thresholds of use for each DOF and released DOF (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], above);
a list of calibration routes (see at least Sikora [¶0075, 0112, Fig.17], “[0075] SLCS 111 may comprise or be communicatively coupled to one or more sensors in addition to the IMU. Such additional sensors may comprise, for example, an inertial measurement system, an orientation measurement system, and an absolute position measurement system.”, “[0112] In block 1710, the suspended load control system (“SLCS”) in the apparatus may be started up and operational module 1700 activated.[] During block 1710, operational module 1700 may determine a relative orientation of fan units which operational module 1700 is to control. This determination may be based on sensor information from the fan units, such as a compass heading sampled from each fan unit.”);
a stop or slow-down commands, attached to a relevant released DOF controlled by the payload controller (see at least Sikora [¶0116, 0119], “Move to/stop at position mode 1723: will stabilize an SLCS to a fixed position, counteracting the influence of the weather or small movements of the helicopter or other suspending platform. This mode has the effect of killing all motion. The operator may send the desired target position to SLCS via a remote interface.”, “Hold position mode 1726: will resist all motion of an SLCS and maintain current position and/or orientation independent of the ownship's motion. This module has the effect of killing all motion. This module has conditional responses respectively to ownship speed, safety factors, and physical constraints.”);
boundaries and limits for the defined released DOFs controlled by the payload controller (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”); and
an in and/or out of boundaries flag massage; and
wherein massages from the payload controller to the drone controller comprises at least one member of the following list:
the current active-payload weight,
center of gravity relative to one or more docking points of the current active-payload and DOFs available to be controlled by the payload controller (see at least Sikora [¶0060], “An SLCS may be releasably secured to an existing structure designed to hold other loads, such as litters, cages, platforms, or the like”);
parameters stating releasable DOFs with a maximal thrust and/or imbalance that is allowed to be exerted in each of the released DOFs controlled by the active-payload (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”);
a position or orientation changing request message;
parameters setting of drone control rules and thresholds massage; and
a request for changing control message (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”).
Regarding claim 50, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein when an out of boundaries flag massage is sent from the drone controller to the payload controller, the drone controller takes control over the released DOFs, so that the drone controller controls all six DOFs of the drone until the drone and the current active-payload are in an in-boundary area (see at least Sikora [¶0096], “Proximity and optical sensors allow the system to be capable of 360 degree awareness and collision avoidance by detecting obstacles (e.g., a portion of a tree canopy) and altering the course of the SLCS to avoid the obstacles or by detecting environmental conditions (e.g. water, proximity to a target or to a carrier) and responding as programmed, such as by shutting fan units down, initiating visual signaling devices, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 51, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein the control defined automatically by a data communication interface between the drone controller and the payload controller or manually, by a remote controlling the drone (see at least Sikora [¶0080, 0093], “SLCS 111 may use remote positional sensors or beacons, remote computational units, remote cameras, or target node transceiver devices to assist in characterizing the location and/or motion of the suspending load [], the carrier, and a target location of interest”, “Helicopter 635 may represent any carrier.[] An interactive display or remote interface in or of helicopter 635 may be used to control SLCS-basket assembly 605 to stabilize and/or control the fine position and orientation of SLCS-basket assembly 605 relative to helicopter 635 and/or relative to a remote positional unit or target node”).
Regarding claim 52, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein the drone controller changes between different controls from the predefined list of control for performing different one or more tasks, by the drone and the current active-payload (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”).
Regarding claim 53, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein:
maneuvers performed by the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone are recognized by the drone controller using inertial and rate sensors installed in the drone, and maneuvers are performed in response by the drone (see at least Sikora [¶0075, 0112, Fig.17], “[0075] SLCS 111 may comprise or be communicatively coupled to one or more sensors in addition to the IMU. Such additional sensors may comprise, for example, an inertial measurement system, an orientation measurement system, and an absolute position measurement system.”, “[0112] In block 1710, the suspended load control system (“SLCS”) in the apparatus may be started up and operational module 1700 activated.[] During block 1710, operational module 1700 may determine a relative orientation of fan units which operational module 1700 is to control. This determination may be based on sensor information from the fan units, such as a compass heading sampled from each fan unit.”); and / or
maneuvers made by the drone are recognized by the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, by one or more inertial and rate sensors installed in the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and maneuvers are performed by the current active-payload in response (see at least Sikora [¶0075, 0112, Fig.17], above).
Regarding claim 54, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein the selected control defines at least one of:
the payload controller controls the released DOFs independently from the drone controller and the released DOFs are controlled by the payload controller and are supervised by the drone controller (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”).
Regarding claim 55, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 54, Sikora further discloses wherein the drone controller takes control over the released DOFs to control maneuver instructions in the released DOF (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”); wherein in a communication between the drone controller and the payload controller and the drone controller at least one of the following is performed:
a stop message to the payload controller is sent to stop controlling the released DOFs by the payload controller and to control the released DOFs by the drone controller; and
a slow-down message attached to a relevant released DOF controlled by the payload controller (see at least Sikora [¶0116, 0119] Move to/stop at position mode 1723: will stabilize an SLCS to a fixed position, counteracting the influence of the weather or small movements of the helicopter or other suspending platform. This mode has the effect of killing all motion. The operator may send the desired target position to SLCS via a remote interface.”, “Hold position mode 1726: will resist all motion of an SLCS and maintain current position and/or orientation independent of the ownship's motion. This module has the effect of killing all motion. This module has conditional responses respectively to ownship speed, safety factors, and physical constraints.”).
Regarding claim 56, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein the drone is operated by an operator (see at least Sikora [¶0179], “Control of carrier may comprise integration with control systems or modules of carrier and/or may comprise providing instructions to an operator of carrier.”), that uses a remote-control station or by a remote autonomous Command and Control Operation System (see at least Sikora [¶0073], “Wireless transceivers may be used to communicate with remote sensors, a remote control interface, a remote positional unit or target node, a remote interface, and the like); and the current active-payload is operated by a second operator the-that uses a second control station or a remote (see at least Sikora [¶0116], “The operator may send the desired target position to SLCS via a remote interface.”).
Regarding claim 57, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses further comprising a drone power source and a current active-payload power source, which are independent or which are electrically connected according to one of the following arrangements:
the current active-payload uses the drone power source to operate tools installed in the current active payload (see at least Sikora [¶0069], “a carrier, such as a helicopter or crane, from which the SLCS may suspended may provide power through a line extending down a suspension cable to the SLCS. In embodiments, the carrier may provide some power to the SLCS, while the SLCS may obtain other power from an on-board power supply. In various embodiments, the SLCS may be powered by a combination of on-board and remote power. In environments, all power for the SLCS may be contained on board, allowing fully autonomous operation without dependence on the availability of external power sources or delivery means.”);
the current active payload power source supplies power to the drone (see at least Sikora [¶0069], above); and
the current active payload power source and the drone power source are electrically connected to an external ground power source (see at least Sikora [¶0069], above).
Regarding claim 58, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination The system of claim 44, Sikora further discloses wherein the drone and the current active-payload are connected by one to three gimbal pivots or by Kardani joint; wherein the pivots contain limiters which enable the payload controller to rotate the current active-payload alone inside limits created by the limiters, while the drone controller is able to change the drone orientation as required for keeping the drone position stable (see at least Desaulniers [¶0045], “A 3D ball-joints function (13) enables to modify the orientation in space of the propulsion groups (1) in order to allow progression in a given direction. [] The 3D central articulated body (2) composed of a number of sections (2) and ball-joints functions (13), (14), (15), (16) and (17), can adopt any necessary configuration in order to preserve the balance of the drone by optimizing the position of its centre of gravity (84), by compensating for the different thrust forces or damping forces, moments or couples (79), (80), (82), (83), (85) and (87), while limiting the changes of attitude and shocks applied to the payload.”).
Regarding claim 59, Desaulniers discloses (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011], “the craft platform or the drone”), which is an aircraft that is able to hover (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011], “keep it in sustentation in air”) comprising:
a drone controller (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011], “a real-time autonomous guidance, navigation and control device”)
Desaulniers does not explicitly disclose: which identifies a current active-payload of an active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and selects a control from a predefined list of controls; wherein each of the controls defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by a payload controller coupled to the drone controller, which is embedded in the active-payload, according to the identified current active-payload and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active-payload; and
wherein when the drone performs one or more tasks with the current active- payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions maneuvering the drone and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions maneuvering the drone and the current active-payload.
However, Sikora discloses which identifies a current active-payload of an active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and selects a control from a predefined list of controls; wherein each of the controls defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”) to be controlled by a payload controller coupled to the drone controller (see at least Sikora [¶0157-0158], “Obstacle avoidance module 3800 and/or decision and thrust control module 1800 may be active and, in conjunction with operational module 1700 and decision and thrust control module 1800, may instruct SLCS secured to load 2807 to rotate the load so as to reduce the proximity of the SLCS' to obstacle 2805 or to negotiate the load relative to obstacle 2805.”, i.e., bi-directional communication between drone and payload controllers, or communicational coupling of the controllers.),
which is embedded in the active-payload, according to the identified current active-payload and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active-payload (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], above); and
wherein when the drone performs one or more tasks with the current active- payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions maneuvering the drone and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions maneuvering the drone and the current active-payload (see at least Sikora [¶0057], “a suspended load control system provides control of a load, independent from a carrier. The suspended load control system or load stability system (referred to together as, “SLCS”) of this disclosure controls a load by exerting force from thrusters, fans, or propellers, as are found in electric ducted fans at, or near, the location of the load. [] Vector thrust force produced by the EDFs may be used to counteract yaw and pendular motion, may be used to translate a load horizontally, such as to avoid an obstacle or to move a load into an offset position relative to a normal lowest-energy hanging position, or may otherwise be used to control the fine location and yaw of a load, independently from the carrier.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Sikora to modify Desaulniers, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of a drone controller coupled to the payload controller, identifying a current active payload, selecting a control that defines degrees of freedom to be controlled by the drone controller and the payload controller, and controlling maneuver instructions in drone and payload controlled DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque with at least one thrust source and/or moving weight . For the purpose of improving management of loads and carriers by having the load moved independently from the carrier, including horizontal translation, pendular motion, and yaw control. Drone operators may use legacy equipment that would benefit from independent load control (see at least Sikora [¶0007, 0008]).
Regarding claim 60, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The drone of claim 59, Sikora further discloses wherein the drone controller defines values of physical parameters defining control rules and thresholds of use for each released DOF and for every control (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”).
Regarding claim 61, Desaulniers discloses An active-payload, temporarily and detachably coupled to a drone (see at least Desaulniers [Fig.1 lower tray (3), payload cockpit (4), payload (5)]), the drone having a drone controller (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011], “a real-time autonomous guidance, navigation and control device”), comprising:
one or more thrust sources and/or moving weight (see at least Desaulniers [¶0045, Fig.1], “The lateral bodies (6) connect the lower propulsion group (7) to the lower tray (3)”); and
Desaulniers does not explicitly disclose: a payload controller coupled to the drone controller, which receives released degrees of freedom (DOFs) from the drone controller to be controlled by the payload controller, and the payload controller instructs the active-payload to perform maneuvers along the released DOFs
wherein when the drone performs one or more tasks with the active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions maneuvering the drone, and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions maneuvering the drone and the active-payload by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the one or more thrust sources and/or moving weight.
However, Sikora discloses a payload controller coupled to the drone controller (see at least Sikora [¶0157-0158], “Obstacle avoidance module 3800 and/or decision and thrust control module 1800 may be active and, in conjunction with operational module 1700 and decision and thrust control module 1800, may instruct SLCS secured to load 2807 to rotate the load so as to reduce the proximity of the SLCS' to obstacle 2805 or to negotiate the load relative to obstacle 2805.”, i.e., bi-directional communication between drone and payload controllers, or communicational coupling of the controllers.), which receives released degrees of freedom (DOFs) from the drone controller to be controlled by the payload controller, and the payload controller instructs the active-payload to perform maneuvers along the released DOFs (see at least Sikora [¶0130, Fig.18], “In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”);
wherein when the drone performs one or more tasks with the active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions maneuvering the drone, and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions maneuvering the drone and the active-payload by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the one or more thrust sources and/or moving weight (see at least Sikora [¶0057], “a suspended load control system provides control of a load, independent from a carrier. The suspended load control system or load stability system (referred to together as, “SLCS”) of this disclosure controls a load by exerting force from thrusters, fans, or propellers, as are found in electric ducted fans at, or near, the location of the load. [] Vector thrust force produced by the EDFs may be used to counteract yaw and pendular motion, may be used to translate a load horizontally, such as to avoid an obstacle or to move a load into an offset position relative to a normal lowest-energy hanging position, or may otherwise be used to control the fine location and yaw of a load, independently from the carrier.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Sikora to modify Desaulniers, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of a drone controller coupled to the payload controller, identifying a current active payload, selecting a control that defines degrees of freedom to be controlled by the drone controller and the payload controller, and controlling maneuver instructions in drone and payload controlled DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque with at least one thrust source and/or moving weight . For the purpose of improving management of loads and carriers by having the load moved independently from the carrier, including horizontal translation, pendular motion, and yaw control. Drone operators may use legacy equipment that would benefit from independent load control (see at least Sikora [¶0007, 0008]).
Regarding claim 62, Desaulniers and Sikora in combination disclose The active-payload of claim 61, Sikora further discloses further comprising one or more inertial and rate sensors installed in the active-payload (see at least Sikora [¶0075], “SLCS 111 may comprise or be communicatively coupled to one or more sensors in addition to the IMU. Such additional sensors may comprise, for example, an inertial measurement system, an orientation measurement system, and an absolute position measurement system.”), wherein the payload controller recognizes maneuvers performed by the drone by the one or more inertial and rate sensors and instructs the payload to perform maneuvers in response (see at least Sikora [¶0081] The SLCS processor executes modules with respect to sensor system data to yield a desired system response.).
Regarding claim 63, Desaulniers discloses A method of using a controller for controlling a drone, provided a system, comprising:
hovering a drone aircraft (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011], “the craft platform or the drone”, “keep it in sustentation in air”);
carrying an active-payload by the drone (see at least Desaulniers [Fig.1 lower tray (3), payload cockpit (4), payload (5)]) , the active-payload comprises a self-embedded payload controller and at least one thrust source and/or moving weight (see at least Desaulniers [¶0011, 0045, Fig. 1], “programmable logic type component type housed in the payload”, “The lateral bodies (6) connect the lower propulsion group (7) to the lower tray (3)”);
Desaulniers does not explicitly disclose: identifying by a drone controller coupled to the payload controller of a current active payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone; and
selecting by the drone controller of a control from a predefined list of controls; wherein each of the control defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active-payload; and
wherein when performing the one or more tasks with the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions in drone controlled DOFs and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions in the released DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the at least one thrust source and/or moving weight.
However, Sikora discloses identifying by a drone controller coupled to the payload controller of a current active payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone (see at least Sikora [¶0157-0158], “Obstacle avoidance module 3800 and/or decision and thrust control module 1800 may be active and, in conjunction with operational module 1700 and decision and thrust control module 1800, may instruct SLCS secured to load 2807 to rotate the load so as to reduce the proximity of the SLCS' to obstacle 2805 or to negotiate the load relative to obstacle 2805.”, i.e., bi-directional communication between drone and payload controllers, or communicational coupling of the controllers.); and
selecting by the drone controller of a control from a predefined list of controls; wherein each of the control defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active-payload (see at least Sikora [¶0124-0136, 0174-0186, Figs.18 and 38], “[0130] In block 1820, decision and thrust control module 1800 takes the state estimation 1815, informed by the user-selected functional mode or command state 1817, as well as additional feedback from the thrust and orientation mapping 1825 and output control 1835, and determines a desired direction of motion or rotation of the SLCS.”, “[0174] At decision block 3805, obstacle avoidance module 3800 may determine whether it is to follow an “equal distance” or “geometric fit” process. An equal distance process may, for example, control fans to maintain an approximately equal distance between obstacle(s) in the environment and fans, fan units, or load. A geometric fit process may, for example, control fans to cause a load to negotiate through or around an obstacle based on a determined or obtained geometry of a load.”); and
wherein when performing the one or more tasks with the drone and the current active-payload temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, the drone controller controls maneuver instructions in drone controlled DOFs and the payload controller controls maneuver instructions in the released DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque in the released DOFs with the at least one thrust source and/or moving weight (see at least Sikora [¶0057], “a suspended load control system provides control of a load, independent from a carrier. The suspended load control system or load stability system (referred to together as, “SLCS”) of this disclosure controls a load by exerting force from thrusters, fans, or propellers, as are found in electric ducted fans at, or near, the location of the load. [] Vector thrust force produced by the EDFs may be used to counteract yaw and pendular motion, may be used to translate a load horizontally, such as to avoid an obstacle or to move a load into an offset position relative to a normal lowest-energy hanging position, or may otherwise be used to control the fine location and yaw of a load, independently from the carrier.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Sikora to modify Desaulniers, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of a drone controller coupled to the payload controller, identifying a current active payload, selecting a control that defines degrees of freedom to be controlled by the drone controller and the payload controller, and controlling maneuver instructions in drone and payload controlled DOFs by exerting controllable force or torque with at least one thrust source and/or moving weight . For the purpose of improving management of loads and carriers by having the load moved independently from the carrier, including horizontal translation, pendular motion, and yaw control. Drone operators may use legacy equipment that would benefit from independent load control (see at least Sikora [¶0007, 0008]).
Conclusion
Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Any reference to specific figures, column, line and paragraphs should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference(s), as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference(s) as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 502.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 Neit J. Nieves Flores whose telephone number is (703)756-5864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0930-1800 AST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/Neit J. Nieves Flores/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights