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 action is reply to the Application Number 18/036,308 filed on 02/09/2026
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30 and 31 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 10, 30 and 31 have been amended. Claim 9 is cancelled.
This action is made NON-FINAL
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 6, 7, 10, 15, 26, 28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjoo et al. (US 9927807 B1) in view of Wenyan et al. (CN 112114593 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ganjoo teaches an unmanned vehicle comprising: (Ganjoo: Abstract: “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for control of unmanned vehicles.”; Col. 7, lines 7 – 13: “As used herein the term “drone” may refer to any vehicle without an on-board human pilot. For example, drones may include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial vehicles, fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles, rovers, walking robots, hovercraft, submersibles, and surface vehicles. These drones may utilize various modes of propulsion and/or flight.”)
a data interface, adapted to receive navigation data (Ganjoo: Col. 1, lines 23 – 26: “Various exemplary embodiments relate to a Cellular and IP Mesh modules. The module may include: a system capable of integrating into an onboard auto pilot/navigation unit; Col. 1, lines 30 – 33: The method may include: receiving command and control information; navigating the drone along the navigation path based on satellite location signals;”; Col. 2, lines 20 – 22: “the Cellular and Mesh modules can be further configured to receive navigational data information.”; Col. 8, lines 32 – 48: “Navigation System Gateway 260 may be a module for receiving telemetry output including location information from an autopilot on board the drone over a serial or IP interface. Navigation System Gateway may include its own global positioning system (GPS) receiver for receiving GPS location signals and determining a location. In various embodiments, Navigation System Gateway 260 may be integrated with a compass module and a drone navigation system. Navigation System Gateway 260 may receive navigation path information provided via Cellular Gateway Module 230 or IP Mesh Module 240. Navigation System Gateway 260 may operate between 4.0-6.0 volts. In various alternative embodiments, Navigation System Gateway 260 may provide information to a human pilot who remotely controls drone 200 via Cellular Gateway Module 230 or IP Mesh Module 240.”,
Supplemental Note: the pilot/navigation units gather navigational data per the cellular and mesh modules)
comprising a sequence of commands from a remote data source; (Ganjoo: Col. 8, lines 53 – 61: “creating, using the communications path between the unmanned vehicle and the control system, a network connection with the control system to allow the unmanned vehicle to receive navigation commands from the control system; receiving, from the control system via the network connection, navigation commands; and using the navigation commands to control movement of the unmanned vehicle;”)
a drive controller, configured to drive the vehicle according to the navigation data; and (Ganjoo: Col. 16, line 64 – Col. 17, line 18: “Once the drone has launched, e.g., and the mission is underway, the control system continuously tracks the physical location of the drone, e.g., using GPS data received directly or indirectly from the drone. The control system may receive data indirectly from the drone using a drone network as described above. For example, upon power on or upon launch, the drone may search for other drones with which to establish a drone network, may search for computer network connections with which to communication with the control system, or both. Once the drone determines either a drone network or a computer network, the drone, the control system, or both, determine a predicted shortest path of communication between the drone and the control system. The predicted shortest path may be a path with a fewest number of nodes between the drone and the control system; a path with the shortest latency for messages passed between the drone and the control system; a predicted shortest path based on data available to the drone, the control system, or both; or a combination of two or more of these. The shortest latency may be a latency for messages sent from the control system to the drone, a latency for messages sent from the drone to the control system, or a combination of both.”: Col. 12, lines 62 – 64: “An operator controlling the drone via a remote control device may guide the drone, and it may be directed to the location via an autonomous method.”:,
Supplemental Note: the control system of the drone is used to move the drone per the navigational inputs and it can travel autonomously as well).
In sum, Ganjoo teaches an unmanned vehicle comprising: a data interface, adapted to receive navigation data comprising a sequence of commands from a remote data source; a drive controller, configured to drive the vehicle according to the navigation data. Ganjoo however does not teach a safety controller, independent of the drive controller, configured to analyze at least part of the navigation data and deactivate a drive function of the unmanned vehicle independently of the drive controller upon determining an error in the navigation data.
Wenyan teaches a safety controller, independent of the drive controller, configured to analyze at least part of the navigation data and deactivate a drive function of the unmanned vehicle independently of the drive controller upon determining an error in the navigation data (Wenyan: lines 619 – 622: “after GPS failure, cannot obtain navigation data from the GPS, but is switched to the inertial navigation sub-unit, obtaining navigation data, and using the 5 G base station location to correct the inertial navigation sub-unit location, reducing the accumulated error of inertial navigation sub-unit positioning data;”; line 623: “if the GPS signal in T1 time is not recovered, the monitoring station sends the control instruction, cancelling the flight of the established route, changing to the nearest landing point landing;”,
Supplemental Note: the GPS and inertial navigation sub-unit are independent of the drive controller, thus after a GPS failure, the received data has errors. If the signal is not recovered, the plane is instructed to land).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Wenyen with predictable results. Both Ganjoo and Wenyen teach unmanned aerial vehicles which are able to travel according to navigational data. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the function of detecting a GPS failure where navigation data cannot be acquired and causing the aerial vehicle to land if the GPS signal is not recovered as taught by Wenyen with the unmanned aerial vehicle of Ganjoo. For example, if there is a GPS failure, the aerial vehicle cannot properly travel along a route. The ability to detect this failure and have protocols where the aerial vehicle is to land increases the usefulness of the vehicle as traveling without navigation data can lead to flying where it is not supposed to. The aerial vehicle can also harm others if, for example, the aerial vehicle flies into a building or person.
Regarding claim 6, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches wherein the vehicle comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle (Ganjoo: Col. 6, lines 21 – 27: “The system may include a cellular component that involves integrating a cellular chip set on board the drone allowing communication with the commercial or private cellular network. In addition, there are software components written specifically to allow integrating into onboard drone systems—such as autopilot, onboard sensor, video sensors etc.”,
Supplemental Note: a drone is interpreted as an unmanned aerial vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches wherein the vehicle comprises an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle, wherein the navigation data includes destination data, wherein the vehicle autonomously or semi-autonomously travels to destinations defined by the destination data (Ganjoo: Col. 10, lines 57 – 59: “An operator controlling the drone via a remote control device may guide the drone, and it may be directed to the location via an autonomous method.”,
Supplemental Note: the drone can be directed to a destination where it travels to autonomously).
Regarding claim 10, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches wherein the navigation data is provided in packets, wherein each packet is individually decodable (Ganjoo: Col. 4, lines 5 – 25: “The method may include determining, using the available networks, that a communications path between the unmanned vehicle and the control system is not available, determining, using the available networks, that a second communications path between the unmanned vehicle and a local control station is available, creating, using the second communications path, a second network connection with the local control station, receiving, from the local control station via the second network connection, second navigation commands, and using the second navigation commands to control movement of the unmanned vehicle. Creating the network connection with the control system may include creating an encrypted network connection with the control system for use during all network communications with the control system. Receiving, from the control system via the network connection, the navigation commands may include receiving, from the control system via the encrypted network connection, encrypted data that includes the navigation commands, the operations comprising decrypting the encrypted data to determine the navigation commands.”,
Supplemental Note: the navigational commands are encrypted which are decrypted to determine the navigation commands. This is interpreted as navigational data packets that are able to be decodable).
Regarding claim 15, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches determining that the navigation data does not comply with one or more predefined rules (Ganjoo: Col. 16, lines 24 – 27: “Once the control system receives a flight plan from an operator device, the control system performs constraint validation checks of the flight plan to ensure compliance of the flight plan to one or more flight rules.”; Col. 19, lines 15 – 29: “The control system may support rule based access control, e.g., to data from one or more drones, control of one or more drones, or both. For instance, the control system may include access levels as an administrator, a pilot, an observer, or an analyst. The control system may apply one of the access levels to each of the operator devices, e.g., to grant permissions for the corresponding access level and role to the respective operator device. For example, an administrator access level may grant a corresponding device all permissions, e.g., access to all data and all control. A pilot access level may have permissions for flight control and flight status monitoring of a drone and access to corresponding data, e.g., but not to sensor data from a drone that is not relevant to flight control. An analyst access level may allow control of one or more sensors that are not specific to flight control, e.g., a camera tilt and video access.”,
Supplemental Note: the different rules are equivalent to flight rules and access levels on the hierarchy of which persons are able to control the drone).
In sum, Ganjoo teaches determining that the navigation data does not comply with one or more predefined rules. Ganjoo however does not teach wherein the safety controller is configured to determine an error in the navigation data.
Wenyan teaches wherein the safety controller is configured to determine an error in the navigation data by (Wenyan: lines 619 – 622: “after GPS failure, cannot obtain navigation data from the GPS, but is switched to the inertial navigation sub-unit, obtaining navigation data, and using the 5 G base station location to correct the inertial navigation sub-unit location, reducing the accumulated error of inertial navigation sub-unit positioning data;”; line 623: “if the GPS signal in T1 time is not recovered, the monitoring station sends the control instruction, cancelling the flight of the established route, changing to the nearest landing point landing;”,
Supplemental Note: the GPS and inertial navigation sub-unit are independent of the drive controller, thus after a GPS failure, the received data has errors. If the signal is not recovered, the plane is instructed to land).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Wenyen with predictable results. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 26, Ganjoo, as modified, does not teach wherein the vehicle includes a safety module, comprising the safety controller and one or more relays, wherein the safety module is connected to a power circuit of the vehicle in a manner that is transparent to the drive controller when the drive function of the drive controller is functioning.
Wenyen teaches wherein the vehicle includes a safety module, comprising the safety controller and one or more relays, wherein the one or more relays are configured to break a power circuit of the vehicle (Wenyan: lines 619 – 622: “after GPS failure, cannot obtain navigation data from the GPS, but is switched to the inertial navigation sub-unit, obtaining navigation data, and using the 5 G base station location to correct the inertial navigation sub-unit location, reducing the accumulated error of inertial navigation sub-unit positioning data;”; line 623: “if the GPS signal in T1 time is not recovered, the monitoring station sends the control instruction, cancelling the flight of the established route, changing to the nearest landing point landing;”,
Supplemental Note: the GPS and inertial navigation sub-unit are independent of the drive controller, thus after a GPS failure, the received data has errors. If the signal is not recovered, the plane is instructed to land).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Wenyen with predictable results. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 28, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches wherein the data interface is further adapted to communicate with other vehicles, wherein the data interface is adapted to forward received signals to another vehicle or a base station to provide a mesh network between a plurality of vehicles (Ganjoo: Col. 10, lines 28 – 37: “FIG. 7 illustrates data flows in another exemplary drone network 700. Exemplary drone network 700 may be in an urban or a rural setting. Network environment 700 may include multiple ground based 560 or airborne 400 drone based mesh nodes, Cloud based ground control station 540, remote operator 570, remote analyst 580, local drone operators 560, and mobile devices such as tablets and laptops 730 and Cloud based Central Control Station 540 and a local Control Station 720 in a mobile environment.”,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Figure A, the drones are able to communicate with other vehicles per a mesh network while also communicating with a base station).
PNG
media_image1.png
860
1233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Ganjoo; Fig. 7
Regarding claim 30, Ganjoo teaches a safety system for an unmanned vehicle including: (Ganjoo: Abstract: “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for control of unmanned vehicles.”; Col. 7, lines 7 – 13: “As used herein the term “drone” may refer to any vehicle without an on-board human pilot. For example, drones may include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial vehicles, fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles, rovers, walking robots, hovercraft, submersibles, and surface vehicles. These drones may utilize various modes of propulsion and/or flight.”)
a data interface, adapted to receive navigation data (Ganjoo: Col. 1, lines 23 – 26: “Various exemplary embodiments relate to a Cellular and IP Mesh modules. The module may include: a system capable of integrating into an onboard auto pilot/navigation unit; Col. 1, lines 30 – 33: The method may include: receiving command and control information; navigating the drone along the navigation path based on satellite location signals;”; Col. 2, lines 20 – 22: “the Cellular and Mesh modules can be further configured to receive navigational data information.”; Col. 8, lines 32 – 48: “Navigation System Gateway 260 may be a module for receiving telemetry output including location information from an autopilot on board the drone over a serial or IP interface. Navigation System Gateway may include its own global positioning system (GPS) receiver for receiving GPS location signals and determining a location. In various embodiments, Navigation System Gateway 260 may be integrated with a compass module and a drone navigation system. Navigation System Gateway 260 may receive navigation path information provided via Cellular Gateway Module 230 or IP Mesh Module 240. Navigation System Gateway 260 may operate between 4.0-6.0 volts. In various alternative embodiments, Navigation System Gateway 260 may provide information to a human pilot who remotely controls drone 200 via Cellular Gateway Module 230 or IP Mesh Module 240.”,
Supplemental Note: the pilot/navigation units gather navigational data per the cellular and mesh modules)
comprising a sequence of commands from a remote data source; (Ganjoo: Col. 8, lines 53 – 61: “creating, using the communications path between the unmanned vehicle and the control system, a network connection with the control system to allow the unmanned vehicle to receive navigation commands from the control system; receiving, from the control system via the network connection, navigation commands; and using the navigation commands to control movement of the unmanned vehicle;”)
a processor, configured to analyze at least part of the navigation data; and (Ganjoo: Col. 8, lines 41 – 44: “Navigation System Gateway 260 may receive navigation path information provided via Cellular Gateway Module 230 or IP Mesh Module 240. Navigation System Gateway 260 may operate between 4.0-6.0 volts.”; Col. 8, lines 49 – 53: “Processor 280 may control operation of various computer programs on drone 100. Processor 280 may be connected to Cellular Gateway Module 230, and IP Mesh module 240, Navigation System Gateway 260, Sensor Payload Gateway 270.”).
In sum, Ganjoo teaches a safety system for an unmanned vehicle including: a data interface, adapted to receive navigation data comprising a sequence of commands from a remote data source; a processor, configured to analyze at least part of the navigation data. Ganjoo however does not teach a relay adapted to be coupled into a power circuit of the vehicle, the relay selectably able to deactivate a drive function of the vehicle according to input from the processor by breaking the power circuit, wherein the processor is configured to deactivate a drive function of the vehicle using the relay to break the power circuit upon determining an error in the navigation data, and wherein the processor is independent of a drive controller of the unmanned vehicle, which is otherwise configured to drive the vehicle according to the navigation data.
Wenyan teaches a relay adapted to be coupled into a power circuit of the vehicle, the relay selectably able to deactivate a drive function of the vehicle according to input from the processor by breaking the power circuit, wherein the processor is configured to deactivate a drive function of the vehicle using the relay to break the power circuit upon determining an error in the navigation data, (Wenyan: lines 619 – 622: “after GPS failure, cannot obtain navigation data from the GPS, but is switched to the inertial navigation sub-unit, obtaining navigation data, and using the 5 G base station location to correct the inertial navigation sub-unit location, reducing the accumulated error of inertial navigation sub-unit positioning data;”; line 623: “if the GPS signal in T1 time is not recovered, the monitoring station sends the control instruction, cancelling the flight of the established route, changing to the nearest landing point landing;”,
Supplemental Note: the GPS and inertial navigation sub-unit are independent of the drive controller, thus after a GPS failure, the received data has errors. If the signal is not recovered, the plane is instructed to land)
and wherein the processor is independent of a drive controller of the unmanned vehicle, which is otherwise configured to drive the vehicle according to the navigation data (Wenyan: lines 634 – 638: “Use the first autopilot to control the aircraft to fly autonomously according to the established route; at the same time, check whether the GPS signal is restored in real time; if the GPS signal is restored within T1, switch to GPS navigation and rely on the first autopilot to complete the autonomous flight of the established route; if T1 If the GPS signal is not restored within the time, the monitoring station will issue a control command to cancel the scheduled flight route and change to the nearest landing point;”,
Supplemental Note: the GPS unit can control the vehicle or if there errors for the GPS unit, the aircraft is able to fly autonomously according to an established route. This is interpreted as the drive controller to be independent of the processor (GPS unit) as it is able to fly on the established route until the GPS connection is restored or able to land the aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Wenyen with predictable results. As stated for claim 1, both Ganjoo and Wenyen teach unmanned aerial vehicles which are able to travel according to navigation data. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the function of detecting a GPS failure of a GPS unit where navigation data cannot be acquired and causing the aerial vehicle to land if the GPS signal is not recovered as taught by Wenyen with the unmanned aerial vehicle of Ganjoo. For example, if there is a GPS unit failure, the aerial vehicle cannot perform proper travel along a route. The ability to detect this failure and have protocols where the aerial vehicle is to land increases the usefulness of the vehicle as traveling without navigation data can lead to flying where it is not supposed to. The aerial vehicle can also harm others if, for example, the aerial vehicle flies into a building or person.
Regarding claim 31, Ganjoo teaches an unmanned vehicle system comprising: (Ganjoo: Abstract: “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for control of unmanned vehicles.”; Col. 7, lines 7 – 13: “As used herein the term “drone” may refer to any vehicle without an on-board human pilot. For example, drones may include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial vehicles, fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles, rovers, walking robots, hovercraft, submersibles, and surface vehicles. These drones may utilize various modes of propulsion and/or flight.”)
a plurality of unmanned vehicles, each unmanned vehicle comprising:
a data interface, adapted to form a mesh network with other unmanned vehicles; (Ganjoo: Col. 10, lines 28 – 37: “FIG. 7 illustrates data flows in another exemplary drone network 700. Exemplary drone network 700 may be in an urban or a rural setting. Network environment 700 may include multiple ground based 560 or airborne 400 drone based mesh nodes, Cloud based ground control station 540, remote operator 570, remote analyst 580, local drone operators 560, and mobile devices such as tablets and laptops 730 and Cloud based Central Control Station 540 and a local Control Station 720 in a mobile environment.”,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Figure A, the drones are able to communicate with other vehicles per a mesh network while also communicating with a base station)
a drive controller, configured to drive the vehicle according to navigation data (Ganjoo: Col. 16, line 64 – Col. 17, line 18: “Once the drone has launched, e.g., and the mission is underway, the control system continuously tracks the physical location of the drone, e.g., using GPS data received directly or indirectly from the drone. The control system may receive data indirectly from the drone using a drone network as described above. For example, upon power on or upon launch, the drone may search for other drones with which to establish a drone network, may search for computer network connections with which to communication with the control system, or both. Once the drone determines either a drone network or a computer network, the drone, the control system, or both, determine a predicted shortest path of communication between the drone and the control system. The predicted shortest path may be a path with a fewest number of nodes between the drone and the control system; a path with the shortest latency for messages passed between the drone and the control system; a predicted shortest path based on data available to the drone, the control system, or both; or a combination of two or more of these. The shortest latency may be a latency for messages sent from the control system to the drone, a latency for messages sent from the drone to the control system, or a combination of both.”: Col. 12, lines 62 – 64: “An operator controlling the drone via a remote control device may guide the drone, and it may be directed to the location via an autonomous method.”:,
Supplemental Note: the control system of the drone is used to move the drone per the navigational inputs and it can travel autonomously as well)
comprising a sequence of commands received on the data interface and from the mesh network; and (Ganjoo: Col. 8, lines 53 – 61: “creating, using the communications path between the unmanned vehicle and the control system, a network connection with the control system to allow the unmanned vehicle to receive navigation commands from the control system; receiving, from the control system via the network connection, navigation commands; and using the navigation commands to control movement of the unmanned vehicle;”; Col. 2, lines 20 – 22: “the Cellular and Mesh modules can be further configured to receive navigational data information.”; Col. 8, lines 32 – 48: “Navigation System Gateway 260 may be a module for receiving telemetry output including location information from an autopilot on board the drone over a serial or IP interface. Navigation System Gateway may include its own global positioning system (GPS) receiver for receiving GPS location signals and determining a location. In various embodiments, Navigation System Gateway 260 may be integrated with a compass module and a drone navigation system. Navigation System Gateway 260 may receive navigation path information provided via Cellular Gateway Module 230 or IP Mesh Module 240. Navigation System Gateway 260 may operate between 4.0-6.0 volts. In various alternative embodiments, Navigation System Gateway 260 may provide information to a human pilot who remotely controls drone 200 via Cellular Gateway Module 230 or IP Mesh Module 240.”)
… a base station, coupled to at least one of the plurality of unmanned vehicles,
wherein the base station is configurable to communicate with each of the vehicles through the mesh network (Ganjoo: Col. 10, lines 28 – 37: “FIG. 7 illustrates data flows in another exemplary drone network 700. Exemplary drone network 700 may be in an urban or a rural setting. Network environment 700 may include multiple ground based 560 or airborne 400 drone based mesh nodes, Cloud based ground control station 540, remote operator 570, remote analyst 580, local drone operators 560, and mobile devices such as tablets and laptops 730 and Cloud based Central Control Station 540 and a local Control Station 720 in a mobile environment.”,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Figure A, the drones are able to communicate with other vehicles per a mesh network while also communicating with a base station).
In sum, Ganjoo teaches an unmanned vehicle system comprising: a plurality of unmanned vehicles, each unmanned vehicle comprising: a data interface, adapted to form a mesh network with other unmanned vehicles; a drive controller, configured to drive the vehicle according to navigation data comprising a sequence of commands received on the data interface and from the mesh network; and a base station, coupled to at least one of the plurality of unmanned vehicles, wherein the base station is configurable to communicate with each of the vehicles through the mesh network. Ganjoo however does not teach a safety controller, independent of the drive controller, configured to analyze at least part of the navigation data and deactivate a drive function of the vehicle independently of the drive controller upon determining an error in the navigation data.
Wenyan teaches a safety controller, independent of the drive controller, configured to analyze at least part of the navigation data and deactivate a drive function of the vehicle independently of the drive controller upon determining an error in the navigation data; and (Wenyan: lines 619 – 622: “after GPS failure, cannot obtain navigation data from the GPS, but is switched to the inertial navigation sub-unit, obtaining navigation data, and using the 5 G base station location to correct the inertial navigation sub-unit location, reducing the accumulated error of inertial navigation sub-unit positioning data;”; line 623: “if the GPS signal in T1 time is not recovered, the monitoring station sends the control instruction, cancelling the flight of the established route, changing to the nearest landing point landing;”,
Supplemental Note: the GPS and inertial navigation sub-unit are independent of the drive controller, thus after a GPS failure, the received data has errors. If the signal is not recovered, the plane is instructed to land).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Wenyen with predictable results. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjoo et al. (US 9927807 B1) in view of Wenyan et al. (CN 112114593 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khalil et al. (GB 2573536 A).
Regarding claim 2, Ganjoo, as modified, does not teach wherein deactivating the drive function of the drive controller comprises breaking a power circuit associated with the drive controller, wherein the power circuit is configured to power one or more motors or actuators of the vehicle to thereby drive the vehicle such that breaking the power circuit will prevent the motors or actuators from further driving the vehicle.
Khalil teaches wherein deactivating the drive function of the drive controller comprises breaking a power circuit associated with the drive controller, wherein the power circuit is configured to power one or more motors or actuators of the vehicle to thereby drive the vehicle such that breaking the power circuit will prevent the motors or actuators from further driving the vehicle (Khalil: Page 11, lines 36 – 43: “Alternatively, if the drone determines that the current configuration of motor units (403) is not a viable motor configuration for flight of the drone, a component other than the flight controller (421) may prevent the motors (403) from activating. For example, a suitable component may break a circuit that provides power to the motors (403) if such a configuration of motors is detected. Alternatively, a circuit that provides power to the motors units (403), or that provides power to the flight controller, may only be completed if the drone determines that the motor configuration is a viable configuration. Again, the safety of the drone operation is increased.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Khalil with predictable results. Khalil teaches the ability to break a circuit from a component other than the flight controller which powers the motors to fly the aerial vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function obvious to try with the aerial vehicle of Ganjoo as allowing an component which also controls the flight of the aerial vehicle can act as a backup stop. For example, if there are any structural errors or any other communication errors within the aerial vehicle Ganjoo, another vehicle component will be able to detect this and break the power to motors. The component can mitigate the possibility of the aerial vehicle to travel in an error state which can further lead to the aerial vehicle crashing, getting lost, or becoming uncontrollable.
Regarding claim 21, Ganjoo, as modified, does not teach wherein the vehicle includes a safety relay, which is configured to break the drive power circuit according to input from the safety controller.
Wenyan teaches wherein the vehicle includes a safety relay, which is configured to break the drive power circuit according to input from the safety controller, and (Wenyan: lines 619 – 622: “after GPS failure, cannot obtain navigation data from the GPS, but is switched to the inertial navigation sub-unit, obtaining navigation data, and using the 5 G base station location to correct the inertial navigation sub-unit location, reducing the accumulated error of inertial navigation sub-unit positioning data;”; line 623: “if the GPS signal in T1 time is not recovered, the monitoring station sends the control instruction, cancelling the flight of the established route, changing to the nearest landing point landing;”,
Supplemental Note: the GPS and inertial navigation sub-unit are independent of the drive controller, thus after a GPS failure, the received data has errors. If the signal is not recovered, the plane is instructed to land).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Wenyen with predictable results. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Ganjoo in view of Wenyen however still do not teach a functional relay, which is configured to break the drive power circuit according to input from the drive controller.
Khalil teaches a functional relay, which is configured to break the drive power circuit according to input from the drive controller (Khalil: Page 11, lines 36 – 43: “Alternatively, if the drone determines that the current configuration of motor units (403) is not a viable motor configuration for flight of the drone, a component other than the flight controller (421) may prevent the motors (403) from activating. For example, a suitable component may break a circuit that provides power to the motors (403) if such a configuration of motors is detected. Alternatively, a circuit that provides power to the motors units (403), or that provides power to the flight controller, may only be completed if the drone determines that the motor configuration is a viable configuration. Again, the safety of the drone operation is increased.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Khalil with predictable results. Please refer to the rejection of claim 2 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claims 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjoo et al. (US 9927807 B1) in view of Wenyan et al. (CN 112114593 A) and Khalil et al. (GB 2573536 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Baderman et al. (US 11891194 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches wherein the power circuit of the vehicle comprises a drive power circuit of the vehicle, (Ganjoo: Col. 7, lines 14 – 24: “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) 100. Drone 100 may be a commercially available drone platform that has been modified to carry specific electronic components as described in further detail below. Drone 100 may include cellular module case 110, mesh module case 120, sensor 130, rotors 140 and antennas 150. Rotors 140 may provide lift for the drone 100. In some examples, the drone 100 may include eight rotors or be a fixed wing platform using multiple propellers. The number and size of the rotors/propellers may vary based on particular lift and flight time needs.”,
Supplemental Note: the various propellers of the drone fly the drone).
In sum, Ganjoo teaches wherein the power circuit of the vehicle comprises a drive power circuit of the vehicle. Ganjoo however does not teach wherein the vehicle includes a functional circuit, independent of the drive power circuit, to enable one or more non-drive functions of the vehicle to be provided.
Baderman teaches wherein the vehicle includes a functional circuit, independent of the drive power circuit, to enable one or more non-drive functions of the vehicle to be provided (Baderman: Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 9: “Based on the determinations of states of charge, health, and/or power of the battery received from one or more remote BMS, and/or in combination with determinations of states of charge, health, and/or power of the battery by the on-battery BMS, a control system of the aerial vehicle may make determinations as to states of charge, health, and/or power of the battery. Then, the control system of the aerial vehicle may instruct or control operations of the aerial vehicle based on the determinations of states of charge, health, and/or power of the battery based on respective determinations from the one or more remote BMS and/or the on-battery BMS.”; Col. 6, lines 50 – 56: “For example, as shown in FIG. 2, a power supply or battery 112 may include an on-battery BMS 115. The on-battery BMS 115 may be configured to determine one or more of a state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), and/or state of power (SOP) 225 associated with the battery 112 based upon one or more parameters 220 of the battery 112.”,
Supplemental Note: the remote and on-battery BMS systems are able to detect battery parameters and able to control the aerial vehicle accordingly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Baderman with predictable results. Baderman teaches an on-battery BMS system which is able to detect battery parameters and control the vehicle accordingly. Baderman teaches these redundant battery systems to support the existing battery, enabling the vehicle to operate in a safe, reliable, and efficient manner (Baderman: Col. 1, lines 7 - 22). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Baderman with the aerial vehicle of Ganjoo as it allows a backup battery evaluation system to determine if the operations of the vehicle are to be adjusted. For example, a battery with a low state-of-health can be prevented from performing operations which further degrade the battery. Having an on-battery BMS system as taught by Baderman also increases the life span of the battery of the drone, which can in-turn increases the life span of the aerial vehicle. Ganjoo in view of Baderman however still do not teach when the drive power circuit is broken.
Khalil teaches when the drive power circuit is broken (Khalil: Page 11, lines 36 – 43: “Alternatively, if the drone determines that the current configuration of motor units (403) is not a viable motor configuration for flight of the drone, a component other than the flight controller (421) may prevent the motors (403) from activating. For example, a suitable component may break a circuit that provides power to the motors (403) if such a configuration of motors is detected. Alternatively, a circuit that provides power to the motors units (403), or that provides power to the flight controller, may only be completed if the drone determines that the motor configuration is a viable configuration. Again, the safety of the drone operation is increased.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Khalil with predictable results. Please refer to the rejection of claim 2 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 19, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches further including one or more cameras, sensors and/or peripherals (Ganjoo: Col. 11, line 64 – Col. 12, line 6: “In various embodiments, an operator may interact with the drone 200, Mesh modules 120. For example, as will be explained in further detail below, Central Control Station 540 may be used to control drone 200 or 400. As further examples, an operator may use Central Control Station application 540 to monitor or manage sensor 130 (e.g., using Pan, Tilt, Zoon functionality of an onboard camera) as long as a WAN link is available with access to the Internet and access to cloud based Control Station 540.”)
which are configured to function when the drive circuit is broken (Ganjoo: Col. 18, lines 13 – 23: “the control system may enable an operator device to take over manual control of a drone during a mission by switching the drone into a guided mode and by suspending the automated mission. For instance, the control system may receive data indicating that the operator device triggered a “Return to Launch”, “Land”, or “Loiter” option. In some examples, the control system can send commands to a drone for sensor management, for example changing the pan tilt zoom for an onboard electro-optical (EO) or infrared (IR) camera, depending on the type of sensor onboard the drones.”,
Supplemental Note: when the automated mission is suspended, the manual control of the drone’s cameras and sensors can be used by a person).
Regarding claim 20, Ganjoo, as modified, does not teach further including one or more relays, wherein the drive power circuit may be broken by each of the one or more relays.
Khalil teaches further including one or more relays, wherein the drive power circuit may be broken by each of the one or more relays (Khalil: Page 11, lines 36 – 43: “Alternatively, if the drone determines that the current configuration of motor units (403) is not a viable motor configuration for flight of the drone, a component other than the flight controller (421) may prevent the motors (403) from activating. For example, a suitable component may break a circuit that provides power to the motors (403) if such a configuration of motors is detected. Alternatively, a circuit that provides power to the motors units (403), or that provides power to the flight controller, may only be completed if the drone determines that the motor configuration is a viable configuration. Again, the safety of the drone operation is increased.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Khalil with predictable results. Please refer to the rejection of claim 2 as both claim the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjoo et al. (US 9927807 B1) in view of Wenyan et al. (CN 112114593 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vanlandingham et al. (US 10967875 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Ganjoo, as modified, does not teach wherein the vehicle comprises an unmanned land vehicle, wherein the unmanned land vehicle comprises a wheeled or tracked robot.
Vanlandingham teaches wherein the vehicle comprises an unmanned land vehicle, wherein the unmanned land vehicle comprises a wheeled or tracked robot (Vanlandingham: Claim 1: “An autonomous all-terrain vehicle (ATV),”,
Supplemental Note: an autonomous vehicle is able to travel without a person controlling it, therefore interpreted as an unmanned vehicle. An ATV is known by one of ordinary skill in the art as a land vehicle with wheels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Vanlandingham with predictable results. Both Ganjoo and Vanlandingham teach unmanned autonomous vehicles that are able to acquire navigational data in which they are able to perform navigational functions. To one with ordinary skill in the art, both of these unmanned vehicles are performing the same function with a different traveling method, thus a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The claims themselves mention the claimed technology to be used by aerial and land vehicles, thus the claimed methods are meant to work with both types of vehicles and therefore another reason by one with ordinary skill in the art would find both unmanned vehicles are nothing more than a simple substitution.
Regarding claim 11, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches wherein the packets are sent in a packet stream, wherein a sequence of the packets defines a sequence of commands, (Ganjoo: Col. 19, lines 30 – 42: “the control system enables a multi-operator network in which one operator device can control multiple drones, one drone can be controlled by multiple operator devices, or both. For example, the control system ensures that only one primary operator device is active and has control of a particular drone at any given time. The control system maintains any additional operator devices in a standby mode in which the additional operator devices cannot issue navigation commands to the drone while the primary operator device has control of and can send navigation commands to the drone. The control system may allow the primary operator device to delegate to or exchange control with another operator device as needed.”,
Supplemental Note: the drone can receive multiple navigational commands).
In sum, Ganjoo teaches wherein the packets are sent in a packet stream, wherein a sequence of the packets defines a sequence of commands. Ganjoo however does not teach wherein determining the error in the navigation data comprises determining a missing packet in the packet stream.
Vanlandingham teaches wherein determining the error in the navigation data comprises determining a missing packet in the packet stream (Vanlandingham: Abstract: “an autonomous all-terrain vehicle (ATV) may include a controller receiving a command associated with autonomous driving and monitoring components of the autonomous ATV, a location unit determining a current location associated with the autonomous ATV and a destination location associated with the command, a navigation module determining one or more driving parameters based on map data associated with a path from the current location to the destination location, and a safety logic implementing an emergency stop based on an error determined by the controller.”; Col. 2, lines 1 – 6: “The autonomous ATV may include a controller area network (CAN) bus communicatively coupling the controller, the location unit, and the navigation module and the controller may monitor the CAN bus for delays in communication or a loss of frames associated with communications as the error.”; Col. 6, lines 54 – Col. 7, line 2: “According to one or more aspects, the safety logic 132 may implement an emergency stop based on an error determined by the controller 110 or an error determined by the safety logic 132. In other words, the controller 110 may monitor the location unit 120, the navigation module 130, the sensor module 140, the interface module 150, the communications module 160, the drive controller 170, or the CAN bus 172 for the error. Examples of errors determined by the controller 110 may include a GPS error associated with signal loss or a real time kinematic (RTK) correction error, invalid sensor data from the sensor module 140, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) watchdog timer error, mechanical errors sensed by the sensor module 140 (e.g., errors associated with the brake control system 178, the power steering system 174, and the throttle control system 176, etc.).”,
Supplemental Note: the safety logic is used to identify errors in the received navigational data, such as loss of frames associated with communicating the navigational data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Vanlandingham with predictable results. Both Ganjoo and Vanlandingham teach unmanned autonomous vehicles that are able to acquire navigational data in which they are able to perform navigational functions. A vehicle is known to one with ordinary skill in the art to transport goods or people from one location to another, therefore the navigational data sent to an unmanned vehicle is crucial for the vehicles to operate. One with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the controller’s safety logic in regards to finding errors, such as missing frames associated with communicating the navigational data, causes the vehicle to perform an emergency stop of Vanlandingham with the unmanned vehicle of Ganjoo. For example, an unmanned vehicle with improper navigational data can cause the vehicle to collide with obstacles or venture out to an unknown location. The ability of finding errors of missing frames within the navigational data gives the system another layer of quality assurance that the data sent to the vehicle is correct and they are able to perform their task properly. Furthermore, the ability to make an emergency stop due to these errors prevents the vehicle from deviating from the known path they are currently on. For example, if a vehicle continues into a location with errors in their navigational data, the vehicle may venture outside of a signal area where it can connect back with the base station to receive updated navigational data. The combinations of these two prior art teachings allow for the unmanned vehicles a second level of assurance that the navigational data being sent has no errors and if there are errors, the vehicle is able to stop in place rather than continuing to travel.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjoo et al. (US 9927807 B1) in view of Wenyan et al. (CN 112114593 A) and Vanlandingham et al. (US 10967875 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soeb et al. (KR 20080042311 A).
Regarding claim 14, Ganjoo, as modified, does not teach determining that packets of navigation data have not been received at a defined frequency; or by determining that packets are missing.
Vanlandingham teaches by determining that packets of navigation data have not been received at a defined frequency; or by determining that packets are missing (Vanlandingham: Abstract: “an autonomous all-terrain vehicle (ATV) may include a controller receiving a command associated with autonomous driving and monitoring components of the autonomous ATV, a location unit determining a current location associated with the autonomous ATV and a destination location associated with the command, a navigation module determining one or more driving parameters based on map data associated with a path from the current location to the destination location, and a safety logic implementing an emergency stop based on an error determined by the controller.”; Col. 2, lines 1 – 6: “The autonomous ATV may include a controller area network (CAN) bus communicatively coupling the controller, the location unit, and the navigation module and the controller may monitor the CAN bus for delays in communication or a loss of frames associated with communications as the error.”; Col. 6, lines 54 – Col. 7, line 2: “According to one or more aspects, the safety logic 132 may implement an emergency stop based on an error determined by the controller 110 or an error determined by the safety logic 132. In other words, the controller 110 may monitor the location unit 120, the navigation module 130, the sensor module 140, the interface module 150, the communications module 160, the drive controller 170, or the CAN bus 172 for the error. Examples of errors determined by the controller 110 may include a GPS error associated with signal loss or a real time kinematic (RTK) correction error, invalid sensor data from the sensor module 140, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) watchdog timer error, mechanical errors sensed by the sensor module 140 (e.g., errors associated with the brake control system 178, the power steering system 174, and the throttle control system 176, etc.).”,
Supplemental Note: the safety logic is used to identify errors in the received navigational data, such as loss of frames associated with communicating the navigational data. Examiner notes that the errors found in the navigational data are separated by “or” therefore the prior art is used to reject the claimed determination that the data packets are missing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo. Please refer to the rejection of claim 11 as both claim the same function therefore rejected under the same pretenses. However, Ganjoo does not teach wherein the safety controller is configured to determine an error in the navigation data according to one or more checksums of the navigation data.
Soeb teaches wherein the safety controller is configured to determine an error in the navigation data according to one or more checksums of the navigation data; (Soeb: Abstract: “A method for checking a function for verifying navigation data of an ECDIS(Electronic Chart Display and Information System) is provided to easily and simply check whether a test for verifying data provided to the ECDIS from a navigation simulator is normal or abnormal by transmitting GLL(Geographic position, Latitude/Longitude) data including No input, Checksum error, Null, and Validity error data for a verification test, and checking whether a corresponding result occurs in the ECDIS. No input, Checksum error, Null, and Validity error data for a verification test is inserted into GLL data transmitted from a navigation simulator(2) to an ECDIS(1), and the GLL data is transmitted to the ECDIS. A function for checking validity of navigation data of the ECDIS is checked by checking whether a result corresponding to the transmitted data occurs in the ECDIS. The NO input data sends no sentence in the GLL data. The checksum error data generates a checksum error from the GLL data and transmits the checksum error to the ECDIS. The Null data assigns no data to a symbol in the GLL data. The validity error data changes a validity flag of the GLL data to 'V' from 'A', and transmits the GLL data having the changed validity flag.”,
Supplemental Note: the prior art teaches a system able to acquire navigational data and verify the data based on checksums).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Soeb with predictable results. The navigational data, as discussed above, is crucial for an autonomous vehicle to perform its transportation tasks. Soeb teaches using checksums to verify the navigational data packets are correct. One with ordinary skill in the art would find combining these teachings as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. For example, navigational data can include a combination of coordinates a vehicle has to move to, terrain information, satellite imagery, traffic data, etc. that is used by an autonomous vehicle for traveling and having a checksum system which can verify all of this data and flag which data contains an error or is missing. This can help the base station or any entity sending the unmanned vehicle navigational data in finding what data has errors to resolve. This function is an improvement to the current method as it can improve the efficiency in how the navigational data packets with error are identified and flagged that can be sent back to the controlling entity to resolve.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjoo et al. (US 9927807 B1) in view of Wenyan et al. (CN 112114593 A) and Khalil et al. (GB 2573536 A) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hanna et al. (US 12312081 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches the one or more motors or actuators may be configured to drive the vehicle (Ganjoo: Col. 7, lines 14 – 24: “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) 100. Drone 100 may be a commercially available drone platform that has been modified to carry specific electronic components as described in further detail below. Drone 100 may include cellular module case 110, mesh module case 120, sensor 130, rotors 140 and antennas 150. Rotors 140 may provide lift for the drone 100. In some examples, the drone 100 may include eight rotors or be a fixed wing platform using multiple propellers. The number and size of the rotors/propellers may vary based on particular lift and flight time needs.”,
Supplemental Note: the various propellers of the drone fly the drone).
In sum, Ganjoo teaches the one or more motors or actuators may be configured to drive the vehicle. Ganjoo however does not teach wherein the safety relay and the functional relay are coupled in sequence, wherein the safety relay and the functional relay are coupled intermediate a battery of the vehicle and one or more motors or actuators of the vehicle.
Hanna teaches wherein the safety relay and the functional relay are coupled in sequence, wherein the safety relay and the functional relay are coupled intermediate a battery of the vehicle and one or more motors or actuators of the vehicle, (Hanna: Abstract: “An electric aerial vehicle includes a center unit, a plurality of rotor units coupled to the center unit via one or more connecting arms, one or more battery assemblies, and a plurality of electrical circuitry components. The center unit includes a compartment. Each of the rotor units includes at least a propeller, a motor for driving the propeller, and an electrical speed-controller (ESC) module electrically coupled to the motor. The one or more battery assemblies provide electrical power to at least corresponding ones of the motors and corresponding ones of the ESC modules.”; Col. 3, lines 46 – 50: “In some embodiments, each ESC module is located near a respective motor and is electrically coupled to a respective battery assembly and the respective motor for powering the motor and controlling the speed”,
Supplemental Note: as seen in Figure B below, both ESC units are couples in sequence between the battery and the motors).
PNG
media_image2.png
796
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Hanna; Fig. 5
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ganjoo with the teachings of Hanna with predictable results. The ESC controller, as taught by Hanna, controls the power and speed of the motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the ESC as taught by Hanna combined with the aerial vehicle of Ganjoo as merely a simple substitution. For example, Ganjoo teaches an aerial vehicle such as a drone with a plurality of rotors (Ganjoo: Col. 2, lines 37 – 38), therefore the use of ESC modules to control the power delivery and speed of the rotors as taught by Hanna would be a simple substitution with the modules controlling the speed of the rotors of the drone taught by Ganjoo. Both drones need modules to assist in power delivery and speed control for the rotors for the drone to function properly, therefore the ESC module of Hanna is a simple substitution with the drone of Ganjoo.
Regarding claim 25, Ganjoo, as modified, teaches wherein the vehicle includes a functional circuit, configured to control cameras, peripherals, and/or sensors, wherein the functional circuit does not include the relays (Ganjoo: Col. 7, lines 36 – 47: “FIG. 2 illustrates a schematic diagram of electronic components of a drone 200. Drone 200 may be built on drone platform 100. Drone 200 may include a battery 210, switch 220, cellular gateway module 230, mesh module 240, crypto module 250, navigation system gateway 260, sensor payload module 270, and processor module 280. The electronic components of drone 200 may be connected to ground 290. In other embodiments, sensor payload module 270 may be replaced or used in conjunction with other detection and sensing devices, which may include, radar, sonar, chemical sensors. In some embodiments, this drone may include an avoidance or anti-collision system.”; Col. 1, lines 24 - 29: “the module may include: a system capable of integrating into an onboard auto pilot/navigation unit; and a wireless network transceiver/receiver configured to transmit the location of the drone; other telemetry information and on board sensor data such as video camera to a central control station.”,
Supplemental Note: the sensor payload module of the drone consists of the sensors on the drone. In the reference example, the sensor data is sent to a central control station. The sensor payload does not teach any relays).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section 1. Claim Objection of the Remarks, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the claim objection of claim 9 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section 3. Rejections under 103 of the Remarks, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30 and 31 has been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant states regarding claim 1, Trepagnier does not teach a “safety controller independent of the drive controller, configured to analyze atleast part of the navigation data and deactivate a drive function of the unmanned vehicle independently of the drive controller”. Examiner agrees the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wenyan (CN 112114593 A). Applicant states that Gudat does not teach the claim limitation of “determining an error in the navigation data”. Examiner agrees the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wenyan (CN 112114593 A). Applicant states that neither the prior art of Ganjoo, Trepagnier and Gudat individually or when combined, still do not teach the amended claim limitation of “a data interface, adapted to receive navigation data comprising a sequence of commands from a remote data source;”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ganjoo does teach the unmanned vehicle to receive navigation commands from the control system (Ganjoo: Col. 8, lines 53 – 61). The unmanned vehicle can thus receive a sequence of navigation commands from a remote data source.
Applicant states regarding claim 2, that Trepagnier does not teach “wherein deactivating the drive function of the drive controller comprises breaking a power circuit associated with the drive controller, wherein the power circuit is configured to power one or more motors or actuators of the vehicle to thereby drive the vehicle such that breaking the power circuit will prevent the motors or actuators from further driving the vehicle.”. Examiner agrees the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Khalil (GB 2573536 A).
Applicant states regarding claims 4, 11 and 15, that Vanlandingham does not teach a safety logic that does not function independently of the drive motor control system. Examiner agrees and states this claim limitation is now taught by Wenyan as stated above for claim 1. Applicant states regarding claim 11, Vanlandingham does not teach “determining the error in the navigation data comprises determining a missing packet in the packet stream”. Applicant states that Vanlandingham teaches local errors only and not received navigation data as stated in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Vanlandingham teaches detecting errors such as GPS errors (Vanlandingham: Col. 6, lines 54 – Col. 7, line 2). The GPS is used to locate the vehicle to confirm the vehicle is on the correct path, thus when there is an error with the GPS, such as signal loss, the vehicle cannot receive data used for navigating itself. GPS signal loss is also interpreted as the claimed limitation of “loss of frames” as there is a loss of GPS signal thus the vehicle is unable to properly navigate itself.
Applicant states regarding claim 14 that Soeb failed to remedy the deficiencies of Ganjoo, Trepagnier, Gudat and Vanlandingham as outlined above. These arguments are moot however as Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Applicant states regarding claim 18 that Schoenfeld is silent regarding the breaking of a power circuit. Applicant states Schoenfeld teaches finding errors in the driving functions which are not equivalent to the claim limitation. Examiner agrees the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Khalil (GB 2573536 A) and Baderman (US 11891194 B1).
Applicant states regarding claim 20, Vanlandingham does not teach the claim limitation of “further including one or more relays, wherein the drive power circuit may be broken by each of the one or more relays”. Examiner agrees the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Khalil (GB 2573536 A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights