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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 14 January 2026. The Applicant has amended claim 14. Claims 1-13 and 26 were previously canceled. Claims 14-25 and 27 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 January 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 14 January 2026, with regard to the rejections of claim 14-25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument is directed toward new limitations that have not been previously considered. As such, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., …detect the actual flight altitude of the drone, even in the case of fluctuation ambient pressure…prevent the drone from flying beyond the target position…) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-23, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi (JP6710114, the paragraph numbers are cited based on the attached machine translated copy) in view of Zaharia (US20020104716).
As to claim 14, Hitachi teaches a method for controlling a drone along a shaft, the shaft having adjoining first and second shaft walls, the drone having a sensor system for detecting an environment and/or a state of flight of the drone, the drone having an actuator system for controlling the drone in flight, and the drone having a control device for controlling the actuator system (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: an imaging means for imaging the inside of the pipeline; an illumination means for illuminating the inside of the pipeline; an aircraft body on which the imaging means and the illumination means are arranged and which flies within the pipeline; an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft; a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor…, also see para 0012, para 0029, para 0040-0046, Figs. 3 and 7-8), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving in the control device sensor data generated by the sensor system (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: an imaging means for imaging the inside of the pipeline… an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft, also see para 0029, para 0040-0046, Figs. 3 and 7-8);
determining actual distances of the drone relative to the first shaft wall and to the second shaft wall by processing the sensor data (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: an imaging means for imaging the inside of the pipeline… an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft, also see para 0029, para 0040-0046, Figs. 3 and 7-8);
generating a control signal actuating the actuator system such that the drone flies along the shaft based on a deviation of the actual distances from predetermined target distances and a predetermined target flight route that the drone is to cover until reaching a target position in the shaft (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: … an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft; a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor…, para 0029-0034: … when the state (b) or (c) occurs, it is necessary to rotate the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 and control it to the state (a). In the cases (b) and (c), the sum of distance x<sub>1</sub> and distance x<sub>2</sub> is longer than in the case of (a). The difference in direction between the traveling direction of the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 and the axial direction of the sewer pipe 16 is defined as an angular deviation θ…fly while maintaining the flight direction… inspection aircraft 10 will be positioned on the left and right bisecting line; also see para 0012, para 0040-0046, Figs. 3 and 7-8);
determining an actual flight route of the drone by processing the sensor data, and generating the control signal based on a deviation of the actual flight route from the predetermined target flight route (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: … an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft; a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor…, para 0029-0034: … when the state (b) or (c) occurs, it is necessary to rotate the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 and control it to the state (a). In the cases (b) and (c), the sum of distance x<sub>1</sub> and distance x<sub>2</sub> is longer than in the case of (a). The difference in direction between the traveling direction of the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 and the axial direction of the sewer pipe 16 is defined as an angular deviation θ…fly while maintaining the flight direction… inspection aircraft 10 will be positioned on the left and right bisecting line; also see para 0012, para 0040-0046, Figs. 3 and 7-8).
Hitachi further teaches wherein the shaft has door regions (Hitachi Fig. 2).
Yet, Hitachi does not explicitly disclose wherein the shaft has door regions that are recognized by processing the sensor data, and the actual flight route determined based on the recognized door regions.
However, Hitachi does teach … an imaging means for imaging the inside of the pipeline…The pipeline facility inspection aircraft of the present invention is an aircraft that flies inside pipeline facilities and is used to inspect for cracks and fissures…a camera for taking still images or video camera… (Hitachi para 0006-0007, para 0010, para 0020, i.e., door regions could be recognized by processing data collected by the imaging means)…, a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor… when the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 enters or exits a manhole, if it can measure the distances forward, backward, left and right, it will be possible to operate or control it in a way that prevents it from colliding with the manhole pipes or handrails…( Hitachi para 0006-0007, para 0048; also see para 0012, para 0040-0046, Figs. 2-3 and 7-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that door regions is recognized by processing the data from the imaging means and the and the actual flight route is determined based on the recognized door regions, so that the aircraft can navigate in and out of the manholes and further navigate along the manholes
Hitachi does not explicitly teach the shaft has vertically spaced door regions and the recognized door regions serve as altitude reference features for detecting an actual flight altitude of the drone relative to the predetermined target flight route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zaharia teaches …Based on the position of the camera relative to the numbered indicia on the Strip, the camera image deter mines the position of the elevator in the hoistway using both optical character recognition and pixel counting. The code rail may be a continuous strip as shown, or can consist of a series of individual code rail sections that are applied directly to the door frames at each landing or any other fixed position relative to each of the landings (see at least Zaharia, para 0033) …code rail section which is mounted upon the door frame… (see at least Zaharia, para 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hitachi so as to include the shaft has vertically spaced door regions and the recognized door regions serve as altitude reference features for detecting an actual flight altitude of the drone relative to the predetermined target flight route in view of Zaharia et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the code rail section which is mounted upon the door frame of Zaharia can be used in Hitachi to provide reference features for vertical positions, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hitachi and Zaharia because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 15, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the method according to Claim 14 wherein the actual distances include a first actual distance of the drone relative to the first shaft wall in a first spatial direction and a second actual distance of the drone relative to the second shaft wall in a second spatial direction orthogonal to the first spatial direction, the predetermined target distances include a first target distance and a second target distance, and the control signal is generated based on a deviation of the first actual distance from the first target distance and a deviation of the second actual distance from the second target distance (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft; a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor…, para 0029-0034: … when the state (b) or (c) occurs, it is necessary to rotate the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 and control it to the state (a). In the cases (b) and (c), the sum of distance x<sub>1</sub> and distance x<sub>2</sub> is longer than in the case of (a). The difference in direction between the traveling direction of the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 and the axial direction of the sewer pipe 16 is defined as an angular deviation θ…fly while maintaining the flight direction… inspection aircraft 10 will be positioned on the left and right bisecting line; also see para 0012, para 0040-0046, Figs. 3 and 7-8).
As to claim 16, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the method according to Claim 15 wherein the actual distances include an additional first actual distance of the drone relative to the first shaft wall in the first spatial direction, the first actual distance and the additional first actual distance being associated with different points of the first shaft wall, an actual orientation of the drone is determined based on the first actual distance and the additional first actual distance, and the control signal is further generated based on a deviation of the actual orientation from a predetermined target orientation (see at least Hitachi para 0029-0034: … when the state (b) or (c) occurs, it is necessary to rotate the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 and control it to the state (a). In the cases (b) and (c), the sum of distance x<sub>1</sub> and distance x<sub>2</sub> is longer than in the case of (a). The difference in direction between the traveling direction of the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 and the axial direction of the sewer pipe 16 is defined as an angular deviation θ…; also see para 0009, para 0040-0046, Figs. 2, 4-5 and 7).
As to claim 17, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the method according to Claim 15 including determining a third actual distance of the drone relative to a ceiling of the shaft by processing the sensor data, and wherein the control signal is further generated based on a deviation of the third actual distance from a predetermined third target distance (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft; a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor…, also see para 0029-0034, para 0040-0046, Figs. 2-3 and 7-8).
As to claim 18, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the method according to Claim 17 including determining a fourth actual distance of the drone relative to a floor of the shaft by processing the sensor data, and wherein the control signal is further generated based on a deviation of the fourth actual distance from a predetermined fourth target distance (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft; a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor…, also see para 0029-0034, para 0040-0046, Figs. 2-3 and 7-8).
As to claim 19, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the method according to Claim 14 including generating measurement data comprising a measured width, depth and/or length of the shaft from the sensor data (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007, Figs 3 and 7).
As to claim 20, Hitachi teaches the method according to Claim 14 including transmitting the sensor data and/or data generated from the sensor data from the control device to an external data processing device (see at least Hitachi para 0012, para 0022, Fig 2).
As to claim 21, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the control device for controlling the actuator system that controls the drone in flight, the drone having the sensor system for detecting the environment and/or the state of the flight of the drone, the control device comprising a processor adapted to perform the method according to Claim 14 (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: an imaging means for imaging the inside of the pipeline; an illumination means for illuminating the inside of the pipeline; an aircraft body on which the imaging means and the illumination means are arranged and which flies within the pipeline; an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft; a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor, para 0013: …the output calculated by the flight control means 24 is provided to the motors that power each of the propellers…; Fig 1).
As to claim 22, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches a drone control system for actuating the actuator system of the drone, the drone control system comprising: the sensor system detecting the environment and/or the state of the flight of the drone; and the control device according to Claim 21 (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007: an imaging means for imaging the inside of the pipeline; an illumination means for illuminating the inside of the pipeline; an aircraft body on which the imaging means and the illumination means are arranged and which flies within the pipeline; an upper distance sensor arranged on the upper surface of the aircraft body and measuring the vertically upward distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline; lateral distance sensors arranged on at least two side surfaces of the aircraft body and measuring the distance between the pipeline and the aircraft within the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the aircraft; a flight control means arranged on the aircraft body and controlling the flight direction of the aircraft body within the pipeline based on the measured values of the upper distance sensor and the lateral distance sensor, para 0013: …the output calculated by the flight control means 24 is provided to the motors that power each of the propellers…; Fig 1).
As to claim 23, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the drone control system according to Claim 22 wherein the sensor system includes an ultrasonic sensor system that detects the environment of the drone and/or a laser sensor system that detects the environment of the drone (see at least Hitachi claim 8 for ultrasonic sensor).
As to claim 25, Hitachi teaches an elevator installation comprising:
a shaft having at least the first shaft wall and the second shaft wall adjoining the first shaft wall; and the drone adapted to be controlled along the shaft, the drone being equipped with an actuator system controlling the drone and the drone control system according to Claim 22 actuating the actuator system (see at least Hitachi para 0006-0007, para 0012, para 0029, para 0040-0047, Figs. 2-3 and 7-8).
Hitachi further teaches when the pipeline facility inspection aircraft 10 enters or exits a manhole (Hitachi para 0047), i.e. vertical travel along a shaft.
Zaharia further teaches an/the elevator…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hitachi so as to include an/the elevator in view of Zaharia et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hitachi and Zaharia because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a means to measure and collect data for inspecting the elevator shaft using sensors of the aerial vehicle.
As to claim 26, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the method of claim 14.
Hitachi further teaches.
a non-transitory computer program comprising commands that cause a processor to carry out the method according to claim 14 when the computer program is executed by the processor (see at least Hitachi para 0007: calculation means for calculating…, para 0013-0015: …a flight control means (e.g. a microcomputer)…incorporating an algorithm into the flight control means…; also see claim 1).
As to claim 27, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which the computer program according to Claim 26 is stored (see at least Hitachi para 0013).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Zaharia as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Motahar (US20210326495).
As to claim 24, Hitachi in view of Zaharia teaches the drone control system according to Claim 22.
Hitachi modified by Zaharia does not teach wherein the sensor system includes an acceleration sensor system that detects the state of the flight of the drone.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Motahar teaches the sensor system may include obstacle sensors and/or a position sensor and/or an attitude sensor… suitable attitude sensors include a magnetometer, an accelerometer… (see at least Motahar, para 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hitachi so as to include wherein the sensor system includes an acceleration sensor system that detects the state of the flight of the drone in view of Motahar et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the accelerometer of Motahar can be used in Hitachi to detect the acceleration and attitude, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hitachi and Motahar because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a means to measure and collect relevant data of the flight of the aerial vehicle so as to achieve better controlling of the aerial vehicle.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664