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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/106,772, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application fails to teach planning a post-collision trajectory; therefore it fails to provide support for independent claims 26, 30, 37, and 39. Similarly, the application fails to provide support for claims 27-29, 31-36, 38, and 40 as a result of their dependence on claims 26 and 30. The effective filing date of these claims, therefore, is 10/28/2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 26-36 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references Kumar et al. and Yuan, both discussed in further detail below. Additionally, the amendments to the claims have resulted in a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 112, as discussed in further detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. While claim 30, upon which claim 35 is dependent, recites the generation of a collision-free path, claim 35 recites that a preferred post-collision trajectory is to collide with a surface. These two limitations appear to be contradictory, as it is not clear how a collision-free trajectory could include a collision with a surface.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 26, 28, 30-34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillion (US 20170023947, previously cited) in view of Kumar et al. (US 20170212529) and further in view of Dahlstrom et al. (US 11235890, previously cited).
Claim 26.
McMillion teaches:
receiving a collision signal
(McMillion – [0110]) “the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 may detect the collision event and track the distance travelled with its program instructions 2716 as provided by input data from its gyros, accelerometers, and other sensors 2724, so as to course correct back to the navigation path 2720 when the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 is able to recover from the collision event”
recovering control of the collision resilient robot after the collision
planning a post-collision trajectory
(McMillion – [0110]) “the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 may detect the collision event and track the distance travelled with its program instructions 2716 as provided by input data from its gyros, accelerometers, and other sensors 2724, so as to course correct back to the navigation path 2720 when the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 is able to recover from the collision event”
McMillion does not explicitly teach the use of an RRT* algorithm; however, Kumar et al. teaches:
planning a post-collision trajectory for the collision-resilient robot using a global search-based planner including an RRT* algorithm to generate a collision free path and perform a path simplification
(Kumar – [0127]) “a high level path that connects the current robot position and the desired goal, which consists of a sequence of desired 3D positions and yaw angles, is generated using the RRT* as implemented in the Open Motion Planning Library (OMPL). The resulting path is simplified to a minimum number of K waypoints
g
k
W
and is sent to the trajectory generator”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the navigation system of McMillion with that of Kumar et al. Both McMillion and Kumar et al. are directed toward navigation for a UAV using inputs from multiple sensors, therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve the sensor fusion capabilities of the UAV (Kumar – [0006]).
Neither McMillion nor Mulgaonkar et al. explicitly teach a deformation; however, Dahlstrom et al. teaches:
receiving a collision signal after deformation of a collision-resilient robot from a collision
(Dahlstrom – Col. 49, lines 8-11) “the spring-cushion 2427D flexes or bends as a result of an impact or bending force from engagement with the surface, may cause a trigger to modify the UAV flight to a sensor landing mode.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the UAV of McMillion with the sensor arm of Dahlstrom et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent damage to the sensor (Dahlstrom – Col. 46, lines 49-51).
Claim 28.
The combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 26, as discussed above. McMillion further teaches:
wherein planning the post-collision trajectory for the collision-resilient robot after the collision using the global search-based planner comprises using a post-collision state determined while recovering control of the collision-resilient robot after the collision as the initial state for post-collision trajectory generation
(McMillion – [0110]) “the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 may detect the collision event and track the distance travelled with its program instructions 2716 as provided by input data from its gyros, accelerometers, and other sensors 2724, so as to course correct back to the navigation path 2720 when the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 is able to recover from the collision event”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 26.
Claim 30.
McMillion teaches:
a processor
(McMillion – Claim 4) “the unmanned vehicles are further comprising… a processor”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 26.
Claim 31.
The combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. Dahlstrom et al. further teaches:
wherein the collision signal is generated from a sensor embedded between a main chassis and a deflection surface of the collision resilient robot
(Dahlstrom – Abstract) “An adjustable sensor arm attachable to the UAV and supporting the task sensor”
(Dahlstrom – Col. 47, lines 19-20) “The sensor 2311 may be attached directly or indirectly to the sensor arm.”
(Dahlstrom – Col. 49, lines 8-11) “the spring-cushion 2427D flexes or bends as a result of an impact or bending force from engagement with the surface, may cause a trigger to modify the UAV flight to a sensor landing mode.”
[Examiner Note: Although Dahlstrom et al. does not teach a sensor that is not directly contacting the surface of the obstacle, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been a design choice to place the sensor in such a way. One would be motivated to do this in order to protect such a sensor from damage.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 26.
Claim 32.
The combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 31, as discussed above.
wherein the global search-based planner uses information from the sensor to plan a post-collision trajectory for the collision-resilient robot
(McMillion – [0110]) “the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 may detect the collision event and track the distance travelled with its program instructions 2716 as provided by input data from its gyros, accelerometers, and other sensors 2724, so as to course correct back to the navigation path 2720 when the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 is able to recover from the collision event”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 26.
Claim 33.
The combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. McMillion further teaches:
wherein the collision-resilient robot has a field of view and the global search-based planner evaluates possible collisions within the field of view and outside the field of view to plan the post collision trajectory
(McMillion – [0096]) “The navigation system 2710 may be used to build a navigation path 2720 to navigate the unmanned vehicles around obstacles and to their destinations, and may use sensors and components such as, for example; photo/video cameras 2726, gyros, accelerometers, and depth perception and motion tracking sensors 2724 to calculate the vehicle’s pose data and track its position within 3D space while navigating, as well as map objects and the surrounding environment”
(McMillion – [0110]) “the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 may detect the collision event and track the distance travelled with its program instructions 2716 as provided by input data from its gyros, accelerometers, and other sensors 2724, so as to course correct back to the navigation path 2720 when the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 is able to recover from the collision event”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 26.
Claim 34.
The combination of McMillion, Mulgaonkar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. McMillion further teaches:
wherein the global search-based planner adjusts one or more waypoints of a preplanned trajectory with information obtained from the collision to generate the post-collision trajectory plan
(McMillion – [0106]) “The resulting navigation path 2720 may then include a series of what are referred to as waypoints.”
(McMillion – [0110]) “the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 may detect the collision event and track the distance travelled with its program instructions 2716 as provided by input data from its gyros, accelerometers, and other sensors 2724, so as to course correct back to the navigation path 2720 when the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 is able to recover from the collision event”
[Examiner’s Note: If a navigation path is based on waypoints and the trajectory of a UAV is disturbed, then the waypoints of the navigation path are changed by the unexpected new position.]
Claim 36.
The combination of McMillion, Mulgaonkar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. Dahlstrom et al. further teaches:
further comprising an arm to couple a main chassis of the collision resilient robot to a deflection surface
(Dahlstrom – Col. 46, lines 49-51) “The sensor is mounted on a sensor arm with shock-absorbing capability to prevent damage to the sensor”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 26.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. as applied to claims 26 and 30 above, and further in view of Briod et al. (US 20150360776, cited previously).
Claim 27.
The combination of McMillion, Mulgaonkar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 26, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references teach maintaining an orientation; however, Briod et al. teaches:
wherein recovering control of the collision-resilient robot after the collision comprises, for the collision-resilient robot having an orientation after the collision, maintaining the orientation throughout the collision recovery process
(Briod – [0061]) “the inner frame 508 containing the propulsion and control systems stays in its original orientation… and the aerial vehicle can thus continue towards the intended direction”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the UAV of McMillion with the protective outer frame of Briod et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent a large perturbation in the trajectory or crash (Briod – [0061]).
Claim(s) 29 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Lew et al. (NPL 2, cited previously).
Claim 29.
The combination of McMillion, Mulgaonkar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 26, as discussed above. McMillion further teaches:
wherein planning the post-collision trajectory for the collision-resilient robot after the collision using the global search-based planner comprises, for the collision-resilient robot having a collision state, planning the post-collision trajectory
(McMillion – [0106]) “The resulting navigation path 2720 may then include a series of what are referred to as waypoints.”
(McMillion – [0110]) “the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 may detect the collision event and track the distance travelled with its program instructions 2716 as provided by input data from its gyros, accelerometers, and other sensors 2724, so as to course correct back to the navigation path 2720 when the unmanned vehicle control system 1124/1208 is able to recover from the collision event”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 26.
Neither of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches no direct line of sight; however, Lew et al. teaches:
when there is no line of sight
(Lew – Abstract) “This work can be used on drones to recover from visual inertial odometry failure or on micro-drones that do not have the payload capacity to carry cameras”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the UAV of McMillion with the blind localization of Lew et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to assist a drone in recovering from visual sensor failure (Lew – Abstract).
Claim 35.
The combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teach a preferred post-collision trajectory being to collide with a surface; however, Lew et al. teaches:
wherein the global search-based planner evaluates effects of possible collisions and determines when a preferred post-collision trajectory is to collide with a surface instead of avoiding the surface
(Lew – Abstract) “it is indeed possible to navigate in such conditions without any exteroceptive sensing by exploiting collisions instead of treating them as constraints.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 29.
Claim(s) 31 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 210902821).
Claim 31.
The combination of McMillion, Kumar et al., and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. Dahlstrom et al. further teaches:
wherein the collision signal is generated from a sensor embedded between a main chassis and a deflection surface of the collision resilient robot
(Dahlstrom – Abstract) “An adjustable sensor arm attachable to the UAV and supporting the task sensor”
(Dahlstrom – Col. 47, lines 19-20) “The sensor 2311 may be attached directly or indirectly to the sensor arm.”
(Dahlstrom – Col. 49, lines 8-11) “the spring-cushion 2427D flexes or bends as a result of an impact or bending force from engagement with the surface, may cause a trigger to modify the UAV flight to a sensor landing mode.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 26.
Dahlstrom et al. does not explicitly teach an embedded sensor; however, Zhang et al. teaches:
a sensor embedded between a main chassis and a deflection surface
(Zhang – [0012]) “the measuring component is a component that measures the deformation caused by the protective cover coming into contact with an obstacle”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the sensor arm of Dahlstrom et al. with the protective cover of Zhang et al. While Dahlstrom et al. and Zhang et al. are directed toward different types of unmanned vehicles, both Dahlstrom et al. and Zhang et al. are directed towards the use of contact sensors to control the path of their respective vehicles. Therefore, the protective cover of Zhang et al. could be applied to the sensor arm of Dahlstrom et al. with predictable results (i.e., a spring-cushion which flexes or bends as a result of a deformation to a protective cover coming into contact with an obstacle). One would have been motivated to do this in order to protect the sensor arm from damage resulting from a hard impact with a surface.
Claim(s) 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillion in view of Yuan (US 20200258400) in view of Dahlstrom et al.
Claim 37.
The combination of McMillion and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 37 except for a global search-based planner that computes an optimal trajectory in a discretized space in finite time. However, Yuan teaches:
planning a post-collision trajectory for the collision-resilient robot using a global search-based planner that computes an optimal trajectory in a discretized space in finite time
(Yuan – [0085]) “The flight planner 315 may use pathfinding algorithms such as rapidly exploring random tree algorithm (RRT), A* algorithm”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the UAV of McMillion with the A* algorithm of Yuan. The use of A* algorithms for the purpose of planning a flight route is well known in the art; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this modification could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve the route generation capabilities of the UAV.
Claim 38.
The combination of McMillion, Yuan, and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 37, as discussed above. The claim is rejected by the same rationale as claim 34.
Claim 39.
McMillion teaches:
a processor
(McMillion – [0096]) “the unmanned vehicle control systems 1124, 1208 in the unmanned vehicles 1100 1200 respectively, may include one or more processors 2700”
The rest of the claim is rejected by the same rationale as claim 37.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McMillion, Yuan, and Dahlstrom et al. as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Zhang et al.
Claim 40.
The combination of McMillion, Yuan, and Dahlstrom et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 39 as discussed above. The claim is rejected by the same rationale as claim 31.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669