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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11603196 (“Lindsey”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘196 patent anticipates instant claims 1-8, claim 3 of Lindsey anticipates claim 10, claim 7 of the Lindsey patent anticipates instant claim 12, claim 9 of the Lindsey patent anticipates instant claim 13, claim 14 of the Lindsey patent anticipates claims 14-18, and claim 15 of the Lindsey patent anticipates instant claim 20.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winn (US 20150336671A1) in view of Gentry (US009376208B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Winn discloses verifying, by a processor having addressable memory, that a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aerial vehicle ([0011]; [0016]; [0026]) has been travelling at a speed for a predetermined time interval ([0009]; [0016]; [0026]; [0048]).
However, Winn does not explicitly state verifying, that the aerial vehicle has been travelling at a speed greater than or equal to a minimum airspeed for horizontal flight for a predetermined time interval; determining that the aerial vehicle has completed a transition from a hover mode to an airplane mode based on the verification.
On the other hand, Gentry teaches the aerial vehicle has been travelling at a speed greater than or equal to a minimum airspeed (Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 3, Lines 1-10; Col. 8, Lines 50-67; Col. 9, Lines 1-10; Col. 13, Lines 20-40).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Winn reference and include features from the Gentry reference with a reasonable expectation of success, to apply the system in Gentry to the VTOL in Winn. Doing so provides better control strategies for the transitioning phases of the VTOL.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Winn discloses determining, by the processor, a set of take-off variables for the VTOL aerial vehicle, wherein each take-off variable of the set of take-off variables includes one or more of: a vertical ascent speed, a pitch adjustment rate, a final pitch angle, a horizontal ascent speed, a minimum transition height above ground, a final altitude, a minimum airspeed for horizontal flight, a wind speed, and a wind direction ([0009]; [0016]; [0026]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Winn discloses determining the set of take-off variables comprises at least: determining the minimum transition height above ground based on at least geometry of the VTOL aerial vehicle; determining the minimum airspeed for horizontal flight based on a stall speed of the VTOL aerial vehicle; and determining the vertical ascent speed based on a maximum ascent speed of the VTOL aerial vehicle ([0009]; [0016], and [0026]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Winn discloses increasing, by the processor, an altitude of the VTOL aerial vehicle to a first altitude based on the determined set of take-off variables ([0013], [0016]; [0031]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Winn discloses increasing the altitude comprises: sending a signal to one or more motors to produce thrust ([009]-[0013]); and adjusting speed of the one or more motors such that the altitude of the VTOL aerial vehicle reaches the first altitude and vertical flight of the VTOL aerial vehicle ([0012]-[0013], [0016]; [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Winn discloses performing, by the processor, a first pre-rotation check of the VTOL aerial vehicle after increasing the altitude of the VTOL aerial vehicle to the first altitude ([0007]; [0028]-[0029]; [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Winn discloses adjusting, by the processor, a pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle to a first pitch angle via motor control based on a result of the first pre-rotation check of the VTOL aerial vehicle and the determined set of take-off variables ([0016]; [0026]; [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Winn discloses adjusting, by the processor, the pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle from the first pitch angle to a second pitch angle via at least one of: motor control and one or more control surfaces based on the determined set of take-off variables ([0016]; [0026]; [0040]; note: it is inherent that Winn's system can control the VTOL to be at different pitch angles depending on the flight).
Regarding claim 9, Winn discloses adjusting, by the processor, the pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle from the second pitch angle to a third pitch angle via the one or more control surfaces based on the determined set of take-off variables, wherein the pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle is adjusted to the third pitch angle until the pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle reaches the third pitch angle, and wherein the third pitch angle is perpendicular to a vertical plane ([0010]-[0013], [0026], [0040]; note: pitch angle is substantially perpendicular to a vertical plane means the vehicle is flying straight and at various levels).
Regarding claim 10, Winn discloses prior to increasing altitude to the first altitude: performing, by the processor, a pre-launch check of the VTOL aerial vehicle, wherein the pre-launch check comprises a test of at least one of: the one or more motors and one or more batteries, wherein the first pre-rotation check comprises a test of at least one of: the one or more motors, the one or more batteries, and a speed of the VTOL aerial vehicle ([0007]; [0028]-[0029]; [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, Winn discloses landing, by the processor, the VTOL aerial vehicle via adjusting thrust to the one or more motors if the test of at least one of: the one or more motors, the one or more batteries, and a speed of the VTOL aerial vehicle is failed (0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Winn discloses adjusting the pitch to the first pitch angle comprises adjusting thrust to the one or more motors to cause a rotation of the VTOL aerial vehicle ([0016]; [0026]; [0040]), wherein adjusting the pitch to the second pitch angle comprises adjusting thrust to the one or more motors and adjusting a position of the one or more control surfaces to cause the rotation of the VTOL aerial vehicle ([0010]-[0013]; [0026]; [0040]), and wherein adjusting the pitch to the third pitch angle comprises adjusting the position of the one or more control surfaces to cause the rotation of the VTOL aerial vehicle ([0016]; [0026]; [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Winn discloses performing, by the processor, a stability check of the VTOL aerial vehicle, wherein the stability check verifies that the VTOL aerial vehicle is stable prior to performing one or more maneuvers ([0009]; [0026]); and executing, by the processor, one or more mission plans, wherein the one or more mission plans comprise at least one of: increasing elevation, decreasing elevation, and imaging one or more fields (Fig. 1, S150; [0013]; [0015]; [0016]; [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Winn discloses the processor is further configured to:
perform a first pre-rotation check of the VTOL aerial vehicle after increasing the altitude of the VTOL aerial vehicle to the first altitude (0007]; [0028]-[0029]; [0053]);
adjust a pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle to a first pitch angle via motor control based on a result of the first pre-rotation check of the VTOL aerial vehicle and the determined set of take-off variables ([0016]; [0026]; [0040]);
adjust the pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle from the first pitch angle to a second pitch angle via at least one of. motor control of the one or more motors and control of the one or more control surfaces based on the determined set of take-off variables ([0016]; [0026]; [0040]; note: it is inherent that Winn's system can control the VTOL to be at different pitch angles depending on the flight); and
adjust the pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle from the second pitch angle to a third pitch angle via the one or more control surfaces, wherein the pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle is adjusted to the third pitch angle until the pitch of the VTOL aerial vehicle reaches the third pitch angle, and wherein the third pitch angle is perpendicular to a vertical plane ([0010]-[0013], [0026], [0040]; note: pitch angle is substantially perpendicular to a vertical plane means the vehicle is flying straight and at various levels).
Regarding claim 20, Winn discloses the VTOL aerial vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle (Abstract; [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666