DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/27/2026. Claims 1-20 have been canceled, and new claims 21-38 have been added. Claims 21-38 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 07/27/2026 has been entered and applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objections:
Applicant has argued that the claim objections are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant has argued that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
On p. 16 of the remarks, applicant has argued that Liani et al. (US 2025/0028335 A1) is not prior art because of its common ownership with the instant application (i.e., by Xtend Reality Expansion Ltd). The examiner accepts this statement establishing that a prior art exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) applies and has withdrawn the prior art rejections that rely on Liani accordingly.
Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding the prior art rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informality: In claim 30, the phrase “one or more axis” should be changed to “one or more [[axis]]axes.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 25, 28, 30-31, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2017/0144757 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hall, in view of Jones et al. (US 2019/0389577 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jones, and further in view of Chase et al. (US 2020/0388167 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chase.
Regarding claim 21:
Hall discloses the following limitations:
“A system for optimizing flight of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) including a payload, the system comprising: the payload-laden UAV.” (Hall ¶ 44: “the user may input one or more instructions for the operation of the one or more UAVs. In some embodiments, the instructions include delivery instructions for a payload.”)
“an inertial measurement unit (IMU) operably coupled to the UAV.” (Hall ¶ 113: “The UAV control system 110 may also include … inertial measurement unit (IMU) 1412.”)
“and a microprocessor-based controller associated with a UAV, the microprocessor-based controller including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to perform a method.” (Hall ¶ 113: “UAV control system 110 includes one or more processors 1402, coupled to a memory, e.g., a non-transitory computer readable storage medium 1420.”)
“including: i. determining a UAV context based at least in part on inertial measurement unit (IMU) data received from the IMU.” (Hall ¶ 117: “ESCs 1404 communicate with the navigation system 1407 and/or the IMU 1412 and adjust the rotational speed of each lifting motor to stabilize the UAV and guide the UAV along a determined flight plan. The navigation system 1407 may include a GPS, indoor positioning system (IPS), IMU or other similar system and/or sensors that can be used to navigate the UAV 100 to and/or from a location.”)
“ii. receiving payload identification data.” (Hall ¶ 101: “Upon coupling, the UAV configuration information of the coupled UAV is received from the coupled UAV, as in 1104. The UAV configuration information may include … weight of the UAV and/or payload.” Also, the examiner notes that on p. 13 of the remarks filed 01/13/2026, applicant has argued that “the issue of payload identification is well recognized in Hall, for example in Para. [0044], referring to ‘instructions […] include one or more of a payload weight, a payload shape, or one or more payload length dimensions’ which would certainly be understood by the skilled artisan to identify the payload.”)
“iv. determining a burdened flight profile based at least in part on the payload identification data.” (Hall ¶ 76: “The collective UAV configuration may take any form and may vary depending on, for example, the number of UAVs forming the collective UAV, the weather, the number and/or weight of items carried by UAVs of the collective UAV, power requirements, whether one or more of the UAVs of the collective UAV is damaged or inoperable, etc.” Further, Hall ¶ 110: “The positioning of the UAVs in the collective UAV configuration may be determined based on the power capabilities of the UAVs, the motors, propellers and/or lifting capabilities of the UAVs, the size of the UAVs, the payload weight of the UAVs, the location of the delivery destinations of the UAVs, etc.” Determining UAV configuration and positioning based on the payload identification data is equivalent to determining a burdened flight profile based on the payload identification data as claimed.)
“wherein the burdened flight profile represents a change, attributable to the payload, in an operating envelope of the UAV relative to an unburdened operating profile of the UAV, the operating envelope including at least one of a maximum operating speed, a minimum operating speed, a weight distribution, or a maneuvering capability of the UAV.” (Hall ¶ 111: “In addition to determining the collective UAV configuration, a collective UAV resource distribution is determined for the collective UAV, as in 1306. Similar to positioning of the UAVs in the collective UAV configuration, resource distribution may be determined based on, for example, the power capabilities of the UAVs, the motors, propellers and/or lifting capabilities of the UAVs, the size of the UAVs, the payload weight of the UAVs, the location of the delivery destinations of the UAVs, etc. For example, UAVs that will have excess power based on the distance to their delivery destination and/or payload weight, may be instructed to provide power to other UAVs of the collective UAV to enable operation of the collective UAV.” This at least teaches the operating envelope including “a weight distribution” as claimed.)
“and wherein the burdened flight profile is based at least in part on at least one payload attribute selected from a payload weight, a payload weight distribution, and a flight performance model of the payload.” (Hall ¶ 110: “The positioning of the UAVs in the collective UAV configuration may be determined based on the power capabilities of the UAVs, the motors, propellers and/or lifting capabilities of the UAVs, the size of the UAVs, the payload weight of the UAVs, the location of the delivery destinations of the UAVs, etc.” This at least teaches the payload attribute being “a payload weight” as claimed.)
“v. determining one or more burdened flight parameters, wherein the one or more burdened flight parameters are based at least in part on the UAV context and the burdened flight profile.” (Hall ¶ 101: “The collective UAV configuration information may identify, for example, the navigation information of the collective UAV, operating parameters, the configuration of the collective UAV, the sensor locations of sensors that are being used by the collective UAV, etc.” Further, Hall ¶ 117: “The ESCs 1404 communicate with the navigation system 1407 and/or the IMU 1412 and adjust the rotational speed of each lifting motor to stabilize the UAV and guide the UAV along a determined flight plan.”)
“and v. based on the payload identification data, the determined UAV context, and the determined burdened flight profile, executing a command sequence.” (Hall ¶ 76: “The collective UAV configuration may take any form and may vary depending on, for example, … the number and/or weight of items carried by UAVs of the collective UAV, … etc.” Further, Hall ¶ 112: “Based on the determined UAVs, determined collective UAV configuration, and determined resource distribution, instructions are sent to each UAV that is be included in the collective UAV to configure into the collective UAV and distribute resources according to the determined resource distribution, as in 1308. The instructions may be sent to the UAVs as the ordered items are packed and prepared for departure, as part of their navigation instructions, etc.” Additionally, Hall ¶ 117: “The navigation system 1407 may include a GPS, indoor positioning system (IPS), IMU or other similar system and/or sensors that can be used to navigate the UAV 100 to and/or from a location.” Instructing the UAV to navigate according to the determined UAV configuration is equivalent to executing a command sequence as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 21, consistent with the specification, the limitations of “the operating envelope including at least one of a maximum operating speed, a minimum operating speed, a weight distribution , or a maneuvering capability of the UAV” and “wherein the burdened flight profile is based at least in part on at least one payload attribute selected from a payload weight, a payload weight distribution, and a flight performance model of the payload” are each treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. As such, while only the “weight distribution” and “payload weight” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Hall does not specifically disclose “iii. authenticating the payload, by the controller, based at least in part on the payload identification data, to verify that the payload corresponds to an authorized payload for the UAV.” However, Jones does teach this limitation. (Jones ¶ 75: “a multi-factor optical confirmation can be conducted to ensure that the correct vehicle is mated with the correct chemical payload. In an embodiment, a camera in the vehicle can recognize and identify a feature or printed identification number unique to a chemical payload.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hall by authenticating the payload based on the payload identification data to ensure that the payload corresponds to an authorized payload for the UAV as taught by Jones with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Jones ¶ 75 teaches that this security measure can help to ensure that the correct vehicle is mated with the correct payload; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would save time and energy to ensure that the UAV is coupled to the correct payload before the mission starts.
The combination of Hall and Jones does not specifically teach “wherein the one or more burdened flight parameters comprise a rule set including at least one of a recommended maximum UAV velocity, a maximum flight altitude, a minimum distance from an object in a flight path, and a maximum burdened weight value, and wherein the rule set constrains operation of the UAV to remain within the operating envelope established by the burdened flight profile.” However, Chase does teach this limitation. (Chase ¶ 36 discloses that a “aerial vehicle 150 has a variety of associated vehicle characteristics, including, but not limited to, a vehicle manufacturer, a vehicle make, an as-manufactured fuel/charge capacity, a current fuel/charge capacity, a maximum payload capacity, a date/time for when the aerial vehicle was last maintained, and/or a maintenance schedule. Such characteristics may be stored in a vehicle information data store associated with multimodal transportation system 100 and may be used to route payloads using aerial vehicle 150 according to payload characteristics associated with the payload.” This at least teaches the burdened flight parameters comprising a rule set including “a maximum burdened weight value” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 21, consistent with the specification, the limitation “wherein the one or more burdened flight parameters comprise a rule set including at least one of a recommended maximum UAV velocity, a maximum flight altitude, a minimum distance from an object in a flight path, and a maximum burdened weight value” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “maximum burdened weight value” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall and Jones by considering burdened flight parameters such as a maximum payload weight capacity as taught by Chase with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Chase ¶ 4 teaches that this helps “to ensure that the aerial vehicle is capable of traveling the route with the assigned payload.”
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” and Hall further teaches the system “further comprising an electrical connection between the UAV and the payload.” (Hall ¶ 67: “The payload engagement mechanism communicates with (via wired or wireless communication) and is controlled by the UAV control system 110.”)
Hall does not explicitly disclose “wherein the electrical connection is configured to allow transmission of payload identification data between the payload and the UAV, wherein the controller is further configured to confirm a mechanical connection between the UAV and the payload, and wherein confirming the mechanical connection comprises determining at least one of a visual confirmation of the mechanical connection, an electrical confirmation of the mechanical connection, a wireless connection between the UAV and the payload, or a make/break connection between the UAV and the payload.” However, Jones does teach this limitation. (Jones ¶ 60: “sprayer payloads can be identified within ground station 300 by a UAV. For example, a wired or wireless communication connection between the UAV and payload can identify a particular payload.” Further, Jones ¶ 74: “security subsystem 310 can implement multi-factor non-mechanical authentication of a payload. In a first authentication step, an optical sensor such as camera or infrared (IR) sensor can detect a particular payload. For example, a camera mounted on a vehicle can view a particular payload. In a second authentication step, identifier code handshaking as described above can be conducted between the vehicle and the optically-detected payload.” This at least teaches to confirm a mechanical connection by determining “a visual confirmation of the mechanical connection” and/or “a wireless connection between the UAV and the payload” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 25, consistent with the instant specification, the limitation that “confirming the mechanical connection comprises determining at least one of a visual confirmation of the mechanical connection, an electrical confirmation of the mechanical connection, a wireless connection between the UAV and the payload, or a make/break connection between the UAV and the payload” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and as such, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “visual confirmation of the mechanical connection” and the “wireless connection between the UAV and the payload” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall and Chase by confirming a connection between the UAV and the payload as taught by Jones with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Jones ¶ 75 teaches that this security measure can help to ensure that the correct vehicle is mated with the correct payload; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would save time and energy to ensure that the UAV is coupled to the correct payload before the mission starts.
Regarding claim 28:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” and Hall also teaches “wherein the burdened flight profile comprises one or more payload-specific modes of operation, the one or more payload-specific modes of operation comprising at least one of a defense mode, a security mode, a communication mode, a failure mode, and a VR display mode.” (Hall ¶ 88: “In this example, the payload 804 is heavier than a single UAV can aerially transport, so two UAVs 800B, 800C are coupled to form a collective UAV that is coupled to the payload 804 to enable aerial transport of the payload 804.” Additionally, Hall ¶ 60: “In addition to providing a physical coupling between two or more UAVs, the coupling component 122 may provide electrical and/or data communication between coupled UAVs. For example, UAVs may exchange navigation information and/or share computing resources via a data transmission between the coupling components 122 of the coupled UAVs.” This at least teaches the one or more payload-specific modes of operation comprising “a communication mode” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 28, consistent with the instant specification, the one or more payload-specific modes of operation comprising “at least one of a defense mode, a security mode, a communication mode, a failure mode, and a VR display mode” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “communication mode” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 30:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” and Chase also teaches “wherein the one or more burdened flight parameters further comprise at least one of a recommended UAV acceleration, a recommended UAV deceleration, a minimum UAV turning radius, a formula for calculating a maximum safe distance, a maximum angle of one or more axis of an in-flight UAV command, a monitor-and-adjust arming status, a hover travel based at least in part on the IMU or a LIDAR sensor, and a monitor-and-adjust power consumption mode.” (Chase ¶ 37: “In examples, aerial vehicle 150 further comprises a vehicle state monitor, which determines a state of health, state of charge, and/or state of power for aerial vehicle 150. Such information is communicated to multimodal transportation system 100 and used for routing payloads according to aspects described herein. For example, the vehicle state monitor may communicate the state of health, state of charge, and state of power of aerial vehicle 150 at regular intervals, in response to a request from multimodal transportation system 100, and/or upon the occurrence of certain events (e.g., upon departing from or arriving at vertiport 140, as a result of reaching a certain state of charge, based on determining estimated vehicle performance has deviated from actual vehicle performance beyond a predetermined threshold, etc.).” This at least teaches the one or more burdened flight parameters comprising “a monitor-and-adjust power consumption mode” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 30, consistent with the instant specification, the one or more burdened flight parameters further comprising “at least one of a recommended UAV acceleration, a recommended UAV deceleration, a minimum UAV turning radius, a formula for calculating a maximum safe distance, a maximum angle of one or more axis of an in-flight UAV command, a monitor-and-adjust arming status, a hover travel based at least in part on the IMU or a LIDAR sensor, and a monitor-and-adjust power consumption mode” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “monitor-and-adjust power consumption mode” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall and Jones by monitoring and adjusting power consumption during the flight as taught by Chase with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Chase ¶¶ 3-4 teach that this allows the system to remain within an energy budget “to ensure that the aerial vehicle is capable of traveling the route with the assigned payload.”
Regarding claim 31:
Hall discloses the following limitations:
“A method for optimizing flight of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) including a payload, implemented in a system comprising: the payload-laden UAV.” (Hall Abstract and ¶ 44 disclose a system and method for the remote operation of one or more UAVs, wherein “the user may input one or more instructions for the operation of the one or more UAVs. In some embodiments, the instructions include delivery instructions for a payload.”)
“an inertial measurement unit (IMU) operably coupled to the UAV.” (Hall ¶ 113: “The UAV control system 110 may also include … inertial measurement unit (IMU) 1412.”)
“and a ground control station (GCS) in communication with the UAV.” (Hall ¶ 71 and FIG. 20 disclose “a collective UAV configuration system 1528 (FIG. [20]) operating on a remote computing resource and provided wirelessly to one or more of the UAVs 200A, 200B.”)
“the method comprising: receiving one or more human-initiated flight instructions.” (Hall ¶ 44: “the user has permission to send operation commands to the one or more UAVs.”)
“determining a UAV context based at least in part on IMU data received from the IMU.” (Hall ¶ 117: “ESCs 1404 communicate with the navigation system 1407 and/or the IMU 1412 and adjust the rotational speed of each lifting motor to stabilize the UAV and guide the UAV along a determined flight plan. The navigation system 1407 may include a GPS, indoor positioning system (IPS), IMU or other similar system and/or sensors that can be used to navigate the UAV 100 to and/or from a location.”)
“receiving payload identification data.” (Hall ¶ 101: “Upon coupling, the UAV configuration information of the coupled UAV is received from the coupled UAV, as in 1104. The UAV configuration information may include … weight of the UAV and/or payload.” Also, the examiner notes that on p. 13 of the remarks filed 01/13/2026, applicant has argued that “the issue of payload identification is well recognized in Hall, for example in Para. [0044], referring to ‘instructions […] include one or more of a payload weight, a payload shape, or one or more payload length dimensions’ which would certainly be understood by the skilled artisan to identify the payload.”)
“accessing a burdened flight profile based at least in part on the payload identification data.” (Hall ¶ 76: “The collective UAV configuration may take any form and may vary depending on, for example, the number of UAVs forming the collective UAV, the weather, the number and/or weight of items carried by UAVs of the collective UAV, power requirements, whether one or more of the UAVs of the collective UAV is damaged or inoperable, etc.” Further, Hall ¶ 110: “The positioning of the UAVs in the collective UAV configuration may be determined based on the power capabilities of the UAVs, the motors, propellers and/or lifting capabilities of the UAVs, the size of the UAVs, the payload weight of the UAVs, the location of the delivery destinations of the UAVs, etc.” Determining the UAV configuration and positioning based on payload identification data is equivalent to accessing a burdened flight profile based on the payload identification data as claimed.)
“wherein the burdened flight profile represents a change, attributable to the payload, in an operating envelope of the UAV relative to an unburdened operating profile of the UAV, the operating envelope including at least one of a maximum operating speed, a minimum operating speed, a weight distribution, or a maneuvering capability of the UAV.” (Hall ¶ 111: “In addition to determining the collective UAV configuration, a collective UAV resource distribution is determined for the collective UAV, as in 1306. Similar to positioning of the UAVs in the collective UAV configuration, resource distribution may be determined based on, for example, the power capabilities of the UAVs, the motors, propellers and/or lifting capabilities of the UAVs, the size of the UAVs, the payload weight of the UAVs, the location of the delivery destinations of the UAVs, etc. For example, UAVs that will have excess power based on the distance to their delivery destination and/or payload weight, may be instructed to provide power to other UAVs of the collective UAV to enable operation of the collective UAV.” This at least teaches the operating envelope including “a weight distribution” as claimed.)
“and wherein the burdened flight profile is based at least in part on at least one payload attribute selected from a payload weight, a payload weight distribution, and a flight performance model of the payload.” (Hall ¶ 110: “The positioning of the UAVs in the collective UAV configuration may be determined based on the power capabilities of the UAVs, the motors, propellers and/or lifting capabilities of the UAVs, the size of the UAVs, the payload weight of the UAVs, the location of the delivery destinations of the UAVs, etc.” This at least teaches the payload attribute being “a payload weight” as claimed.)
“determining one or more burdened flight parameters, wherein the one or more burdened flight parameters are based at least in part on the one or more human-initiated flight instructions, the UAV context, and the burdened flight profile.” (Hall ¶ 44: “When a user is identified as an authorized user, the user may input one or more instructions for the operation of the one or more UAVs. In some embodiments, the instructions include delivery instructions for a payload, such as a payload pick-up location and/or a payload drop-off location.” Further, Hall ¶ 101: “The collective UAV configuration information may identify, for example, the navigation information of the collective UAV, operating parameters, the configuration of the collective UAV, the sensor locations of sensors that are being used by the collective UAV, etc.” Also, Hall ¶ 117: “The ESCs 1404 communicate with the navigation system 1407 and/or the IMU 1412 and adjust the rotational speed of each lifting motor to stabilize the UAV and guide the UAV along a determined flight plan.”)
“and executing a command sequence based on the payload identification data, the determined UAV context, and the determined burdened flight profile.” (Hall ¶ 76: “The collective UAV configuration may take any form and may vary depending on, for example, … the number and/or weight of items carried by UAVs of the collective UAV, … etc.” Further, Hall ¶ 112: “Based on the determined UAVs, determined collective UAV configuration, and determined resource distribution, instructions are sent to each UAV that is be included in the collective UAV to configure into the collective UAV and distribute resources according to the determined resource distribution, as in 1308. The instructions may be sent to the UAVs as the ordered items are packed and prepared for departure, as part of their navigation instructions, etc.” Also, Hall ¶ 117: “The navigation system 1407 may include a GPS, indoor positioning system (IPS), IMU or other similar system and/or sensors that can be used to navigate the UAV 100 to and/or from a location.” Instructing the UAV to navigate according to the determined UAV configuration is equivalent to executing a command sequence as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 31, consistent with the specification, the limitations of “the operating envelope including at least one of a maximum operating speed, a minimum operating speed, a weight distribution, or a maneuvering capability of the UAV” and “wherein the burdened flight profile is based at least in part on at least one payload attribute selected from a payload weight, a payload weight distribution, and a flight performance model of the payload” are each treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. As such, while only the “weight distribution” and “payload weight” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Hall does not specifically disclose “authenticating the payload based at least in part on the payload identification data to verify that the payload corresponds to an authorized payload for the UAV.” However, Jones does teach this limitation. (Jones ¶ 75: “a multi-factor optical confirmation can be conducted to ensure that the correct vehicle is mated with the correct chemical payload. In an embodiment, a camera in the vehicle can recognize and identify a feature or printed identification number unique to a chemical payload.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hall by authenticating the payload based on the payload identification data to ensure that the payload corresponds to an authorized payload for the UAV as taught by Jones with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Jones ¶ 75 teaches that this security measure can help to ensure that the correct vehicle is mated with the correct payload; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would save time and energy to ensure that the UAV is coupled to the correct payload before the mission starts.
The combination of Hall and Jones does not specifically teach “wherein the one or more burdened flight parameters comprise a rule set including at least one of a recommended maximum UAV velocity, a maximum flight altitude, a minimum distance from an object in a flight path, and a maximum burdened weight value, and wherein the rule set constrains operation of the UAV to remain within the operating envelope established by the burdened flight profile.” However, Chase does teach this limitation. (Chase ¶ 36 discloses that a “aerial vehicle 150 has a variety of associated vehicle characteristics, including, but not limited to, a vehicle manufacturer, a vehicle make, an as-manufactured fuel/charge capacity, a current fuel/charge capacity, a maximum payload capacity, a date/time for when the aerial vehicle was last maintained, and/or a maintenance schedule. Such characteristics may be stored in a vehicle information data store associated with multimodal transportation system 100 and may be used to route payloads using aerial vehicle 150 according to payload characteristics associated with the payload.” This at least teaches the burdened flight parameters comprising a rule set including “a maximum burdened weight value” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 31, consistent with the specification, the limitation “wherein the one or more burdened flight parameters comprise a rule set including at least one of a recommended maximum UAV velocity, a maximum flight altitude, a minimum distance from an object in a flight path, and a maximum burdened weight value” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “maximum burdened weight value” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Hall and Jones by considering burdened flight parameters such as a maximum payload weight capacity as taught by Chase with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Chase ¶ 4 teaches that this helps “to ensure that the aerial vehicle is capable of traveling the route with the assigned payload.”
Regarding claims 34 and 37:
Claims 34 and 37 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 25 and 28 above, respectively.
Claims 22 and 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Jones and Chase as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Duan et al. (CN 113311859 A), hereinafter referred to as Duan, and Korhonen (US 2016/0009392 A1).
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” and Hall further teaches “wherein the command sequence comprises at least one of an object recognition sequence, an obstacle collision avoidance sequence, a pedestrian collision avoidance sequence, and an environmental collision avoidance sequence.” (Hall ¶ 121: “Input/output devices 1417 may, in some implementations, include one or more displays, imaging devices, thermal sensors, infrared sensors, time of flight sensors, accelerometers, pressure sensors, weather sensors, cameras, gimbals, landing gear, etc. Multiple input/output devices 1417 may be present and controlled by the UAV control system 110. One or more of these sensors may be utilized to assist in landing as well as to avoid obstacles during flight.” This at least teaches the “obstacle collision avoidance sequence” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 22, consistent with the specification, the command sequence comprising “at least one of an object recognition sequence, an obstacle collision avoidance sequence, a pedestrian collision avoidance sequence, and an environmental collision avoidance sequence” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “obstacle collision avoidance sequence” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase does not explicitly teach “wherein the object recognition sequence, the obstacle collision avoidance sequence, the pedestrian collision avoidance sequence, or the environmental collision avoidance sequence is triggered in real time based on sensor data indicating a presence of an object, pedestrian, or environmental condition in a current flight path of the UAV.” However, Duan does teach this limitation. (Duan ¶ 35: “ρε(·) is a smooth activation function used to activate the drone's obstacle avoidance mode when the drone senses obstacles in the flight environment.” Further, Duan ¶ 118 discloses an example in which the obstacles are cylinders, which teaches the obstacle collision avoidance sequence being triggered based on sensor data indicating a presence of an object as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 22, consistent with the instant specification, the limitation “wherein the object recognition sequence, the obstacle collision avoidance sequence, the pedestrian collision avoidance sequence, or the environmental collision avoidance sequence is triggered in real time based on sensor data indicating a presence of an object, pedestrian, or environmental condition in a current flight path of the UAV” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. As such, while only the obstacle collision avoidance sequence being triggered based on sensor data indicating a presence of an object has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase by triggering the obstacle collision avoidance sequence when a presence of an object is detected in the flight environment as taught by Duan with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Duan ¶ 4 teaches that this can help “to improve the adaptability of UAV swarms to uncertain flight environments and maneuver changes by designing a collision-free, finite-time affine swarm flight control method.”
The combination of Hall, Jones, Chase, and Duan does not explicitly teach “wherein the obstacle collision avoidance sequence is selected based at least in part on the payload identification data.” However, Korhonen does teach this limitation. (Korhonen ¶ 36: “the payload provides various types of data to the UAV to decide the operation of the UAV. Specifically, the flight control system of the UAV may include a diagnostic module communicatively coupled with the payload. The diagnostic module is configured to initiate an operation mode of the unmanned aerial vehicle, which operation mode is selected from the group consisting of a first mode… a second mode… and a third mode.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, Chase, and Duan by allowing the navigation mode to be selected based in part on the payload identification data as taught by Korhonen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Korhonen ¶¶ 5-6 teach that this allows for an appropriate flight mode to be selected to ensure that the payload is protected and does not become damaged or lost.
Regarding claim 32:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 31,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the at least one command sequence comprises at least one navigation mode, the at least one navigation mode including at least one of an obstacle-avoidance mode … or a UAV avoidance mode configured to avoid a collision between the UAV and another UAV, wherein the at least one navigation mode is triggered in real time based on sensor data indicating a presence of an object, pedestrian, or other UAV in a current flight path of the UAV, and wherein the other UAV, if present, is not physically or electrically coupled to the UAV.” However, Duan does teach this limitation. (Duan ¶ 35: “ρε(·) is a smooth activation function used to activate the drone's obstacle avoidance mode when the drone senses obstacles in the flight environment.” This teaches the navigation mode including an obstacle-avoidance mode as claimed. Also, Duan ¶ 118 discloses an example in which the obstacles are cylinders, which teaches the navigation mode being triggered based on sensor data indicating a presence of an object as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 32, consistent with the instant specification, “the at least one navigation mode including at least one of an obstacle-avoidance mode selected based at least in part on the payload identification data, or a UAV avoidance mode configured to avoid a collision between the UAV and another UAV” and the “sensor data indicating a presence of an object, pedestrian, or other UAV in a current flight path of the UAV” are each treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” and the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “obstacle-avoidance mode” and “object” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase by triggering an obstacle avoidance mode when a presence of an object is detected in the flight environment of the UAV as taught by Duan with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Duan ¶ 4 teaches that this can help “to improve the adaptability of UAV swarms to uncertain flight environments and maneuver changes by designing a collision-free, finite-time affine swarm flight control method.”
The combination of Hall, Jones, Chase, and Duan does not explicitly teach the navigation mode being “selected based at least in part on the payload identification data.” However, this limitation is taught by Korhonen. (Korhonen ¶ 36: “the payload provides various types of data to the UAV to decide the operation of the UAV. Specifically, the flight control system of the UAV may include a diagnostic module communicatively coupled with the payload. The diagnostic module is configured to initiate an operation mode of the unmanned aerial vehicle, which operation mode is selected from the group consisting of a first mode… a second mode… and a third mode.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, Chase, and Duan by allowing the navigation mode to be selected based in part on the payload identification data as taught by Korhonen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Korhonen ¶¶ 5-6 teach that this allows for an appropriate flight mode to be selected to ensure that the payload is protected and does not become damaged or lost.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Jones and Chase as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Korhonen et al. (US 2016/0009392 A1), hereinafter referred to as Korhonen.
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the command sequence comprises a UAV avoidance mode configured to detect, in real time via a sensor of the UAV, a presence of another UAV that is not physically or electrically coupled to the UAV, and to avoid a collision between the UAV and the other UAV.” However, Korhonen does teach this limitation. (Korhonen ¶ 44: “the safe landing mode includes scanning an environment of the UAV with at least one sensor, ranking possible landing sites, selecting a landing site and landing. Further, the scanning an environment of the UAV further includes using information from at least one of a map and a memory. For example, in the safe landing mode, sensors such as LiDAR and the like are used to find a flat and open area nearby to land the UAV safely. Generally, the criterion for selecting an open area is to find an area with no moving objects to avoid persons, vehicles and the like.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase by executing an avoidance mode for avoiding a collision with another vehicle as taught by Korhonen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Korhonen ¶ 44 teaches that this can help to improve safety.
Claims 24 and 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Jones and Chase as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Gurdan (US 2018/0136646 A1).
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” and Hall also teaches the following limitations:
“further comprising: a. a plurality of UAVs including the UAV, wherein each UAV of the plurality of UAVs is independently airworthy.” (Hall ¶ 47: “the system may include two or more UAVs, and in some such embodiments the two or more UAVs may be joined to form a collective UAV.” Also, Hall ¶ 98 teaches that the UAVs are capable of operating independently without coupling together.)
“b. a ground control station (GCS) including a transceiver operably coupled to the GCS, the transceiver in communication with each of the plurality of UAVs; and c. a microprocessor-based GCS controller associated with the GCS, the microprocessor-based GCS controller including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the GCS controller, cause the GCS controller to perform a method.” (Hall ¶ 71 and FIG. 20 disclose “a collective UAV configuration system 1528 (FIG. [20]) operating on a remote computing resource and provided wirelessly to one or more of the UAVs 200A, 200B.” Also, Hall ¶¶ 71 and 128 disclose that “The collective UAV configuration may be determined by one or more of the UAVs 200A, 200B, and/or may be determined by a collective UAV configuration system 1528 (FIG. 70) operating on a remote computing resource and provided wirelessly to one or more of the UAVs 200A, 200B,” wherein “The memory 1512 additionally stores program code and data for providing network services to UAVs, materials handling facilities, the inventory management system 1526, and/or the collective UAV configuration system 1528. The program instructions enable communication with a data store manager application 1521 to facilitate data exchange between the data store 1509, the inventory management system 1526 and/or the collective UAV configuration system 1528.” Also, Hall ¶ 119: “network interface 1416 may be configured to allow data to be exchanged between the UAV control system 110, other devices attached to a network, such as other computer systems (e.g., remote computing resources), and/or with UAV control systems of other UAVs.”)
“including: (i) associating the plurality of UAVs as group members within the group membership.” (Hall ¶ 75: “collective UAV configuration system 1528 may wirelessly send instructions to the collective UAV 202 and/or the UAV 200C instructing the coupling of the UAV 200C to the collective UAV 202.”)
“(ii) designating at least one UAV from the plurality of UAVs as a lead UAV within the group membership; (iii) designating at least one UAV from the plurality of UAVs as a follower UAV within the group membership.” (Hall ¶ 77 and FIG. 8 disclose a collective UAV group with leading UAV 300A and follower UAVs 300B-300G.)
“(iv) receiving, by the GCS controller, a lead UAV flight command; (v) determining, by the GCS controller, at least one follower flight path instruction for the at least one follower UAV based at least in part on the lead UAV flight command.” (Hall ¶ 82: “a collective UAV may operate in a distributed manner, with each UAV maintaining and operating the motors and/or other components of the UAV. Alternatively, the collective UAV may operate in a master-slave configuration in which one of the UAVs of the collective UAV operates as a master, providing navigation instructions, motor speed control instructions, etc., to the other UAVs of the collective UAV. Any control scheme may be utilized to maintain the operation and control of the collective UAV and the distributed configuration and master-slave configuration are provided only as examples. For example, the collective UAV configuration system 1528 may provide navigation instructions to each of the UAVs of the collective UAV.”)
“and (vi) transmitting, by the transceiver, the at least one follower flight path instruction to at least one follower UAV within the group membership.” (Hall ¶ 82: “Any control scheme may be utilized to maintain the operation and control of the collective UAV and the distributed configuration and master-slave configuration are provided only as examples. For example, the collective UAV configuration system 1528 may provide navigation instructions to each of the UAVs of the collective UAV.”)
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase does not specifically teach that each UAV “remains physically and electrically uncoupled from each other UAV of the plurality of UAVs during flight within a group membership” and to determine a follower flight path instruction based in part on “a minimum distance to be maintained between the lead UAV and the at least one follower UAV.” However, Gurdan does teach these limitations. (Gurdan ¶ 53: “During method 400 and subroutines 404 and 506, if the distance between drones is unacceptable (e.g., any two drones are too close to one another), then the morphing sequences may be regenerated. An unacceptable distance or any two drones being too close to one another may mean that the distance between any two drones is less than a prescribed distance.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase by applying the system to work with a plurality of UAVs that remain uncoupled from each other and maintain a minimum distance from each other as taught by Gurdan with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Gurdan ¶ 39 teaches that this can improve flight safety by avoiding a collision between the UAVs.
Regarding claim 33:
Claim 33 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 24 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 26 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Jones and Chase as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Kipnis (US 2022/0413515 A1).
Regarding claim 26:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” and Hall also teaches “wherein the payload identification data comprises data indicative of a payload type or a payload unique identifier.” (Hall ¶ 44: “The instructions may also include one or more of a payload weight, a payload shape, or one or more payload length dimensions.”)
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase does not explicitly teach “wherein the payload identification data comprises data … received via an electrical connection between the payload and the UAV, wherein the payload type or the payload unique identifier is used to at least partially determine the payload weight, the payload weight distribution, or the flight performance model used to determine the burdened flight profile.” However, Kipnis does teach this limitation. (Kipnis ¶ 15 discloses “a drone controller, which identifies a current active payload type temporarily and detachably coupled to the drone, and selects a control-type from a predefined list of control types; wherein each of the control-types defines degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be controlled by the drone controller and released DOFs to be controlled by the payload controller, according to the identified current active-payload type and according to one or more task characteristics planned to be performed by the drone and the current active-payload.” Also, Kipnis ¶¶ 36-37: “massages from the payload controller to the drone controller comprises at least one member of the following list: the current active-payload weight, center of gravity relative to one or more docking points of the current active-payload and DOFs available to be controlled by the payload controller…”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase by allowing the system to identify payload characteristics based on data received from the payload as taught by Kipnis with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kipnis ¶ 134 teaches that this allows the UAV to react to the payload characteristics in a way that can improve the payload controllability.
Regarding claim 35:
Claim 35 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 26 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Jones and Chase as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Lopez Mendez et al. (US 2022/0036577 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lopez.
Regarding claim 27:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” but does not explicitly teach the limitations listed below. However, Lopez does teach these limitations:
“wherein the UAV context corresponds to a ground truth reading of a position, orientation, or motion state of the UAV.” (Lopez ¶¶ 62-65: “In examples in which the one more neural networks are trained to generate a pose, the operations performed by system SY include: receiving a plurality of training image frames for training the one or more neural networks NN; inputting the one or more training image frames to the one or more neural networks NN; and training the one or more neural networks NN to perform the: generating, using the one or more neural networks NN, a neural network pose prediction PNNT1 for the current image frame CIF.” Training a neural network in this way implies the use of a ground truth reading as claimed.)
“and wherein the IMU data comprises an IMU dataset generated at least in part by using a neural network to filter the IMU dataset during flight.” (Lopez ¶ 48: “the combining of the inertial measurement unit pose prediction PIMUT1 for the current point in time T1, and the neural network pose prediction PNNT1 for the current image frame CIF, may be achieved by inputting these values to a non-linear filter NLF.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase by training a neural network with vehicle ground truth data and then using the neural network to filter IMU data as taught by Lopez with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Lopez ¶ 33 teaches “Examples of the system SY that employ a neural network to estimate the camera pose may offer improvements including reduced power consumption, and a faster estimation of camera pose,” and that “Examples of the system SY that estimate the camera pose by combining the inertial measurement unit data IMUDAT with the predicted pose may offer improvements including improved accuracy and a more robust estimation of camera pose.”
Regarding claim 36:
Claim 36 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 27 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Jones and Chase as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Downey et al. (US 2016/0114886 A1), hereinafter referred to as Downey.
Regarding claim 29:
The combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase teaches “The system of claim 21,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the controller is further configured to receive a configuration package associated with the payload from a ground control station (GCS), the configuration package comprising the rule set associated with the payload.” However, Downey this limitation is taught by Downey. (Downey ¶ 58: “payload processing engine 320 can communicate with a configuration utility, e.g., operated by a user, which can provide configuration and programming information to the payload modules 122.” Further, Downey ¶ 83: “The radio system 604 transmits, and receives, data and messages from the camera system 606 to, and from, communication systems outside of the UAV, e.g., ground based control systems.” Also, Downey ¶ 96: “the configuration utility can ensure that a ground datalink includes complementary settings to the UAV radio datalink. That is, the configuration utility can connect to a ground based system, and present a user interface with selectable options already selected based on the UAV selections 802.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Hall, Jones, and Chase by allowing the controller to receive a payload configuration package from a ground control system as taught by Downey with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Downey ¶ 91 teaches that this allows for configuring the UAV’s modules while ensuring correct functionality of the UAV.
Regarding claim 38:
Claim 38 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 29 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights