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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2023, was filed before the
mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37
CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes that the effective filing date of 12/24/2020 is granted based on the review of the foreign priority application AU2020904851.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 06/23/2023. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 17-19, 70, 72-73, 77, 85, 87-89, 91, and 93 are pending and examined below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification filed on 06/23/2023 fails to incorporate by reference the claimed foreign priority document AU2020904851.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 14, and 17 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cutler et al., US 20190180634 A1, herein referred to as Cutler.
Regarding claim 1,
Cutler discloses the following:
a manned vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aerial vehicle (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036)
system may include a single-seat manned VTOL aerial vehicle
a body comprising a cockpit (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036)
VTOL aerial vehicle may include a single seat cockpit for a user
a propulsion system carried by the body to propel the body during flight (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036)
VTOL aerial vehicle includes multiple rotors for flight
pilot-operable controls accessible from the cockpit (Paragraph 0031)
VTOL aerial vehicle may have pilot controls available from within the cockpit
a sensing system (Paragraph 0039)
VTOL aerial vehicle may include sensors utilized for control of the aircraft
at least one processor (Paragraph 0022)
system may include a processor
memory storing program instructions accessible by the at least one processor (Paragraph 0022)
system may include memory which stores instructions for operation
determine a state estimate that is indicative of a state of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle within a region around the manned VTOL aerial vehicle (Paragraphs 0075, 0077)
the VTOL aerial vehicle’s state may be determined when it is present in a region
wherein the state estimate comprises: a position estimate that is indicative of a position of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle within the region; a speed vector that is indicative of a velocity of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; and an attitude vector that is indicative of an attitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle (Paragraphs 0077-0079, 0100, 0110)
a VTOL aerial vehicle’s state may include a position of the vehicle in a given region, its speed, and its attitude
vehicle state information may be based on a direction of flight which results in associated vectors (magnitude and direction)
generate a repulsion potential field model of the region based at least in part on sensor data generated by the sensing system (Fig. 10B, Paragraph 0104)
a repulsion potential field may be setup between two VTOL aerial vehicles
VTOL aerial vehicles may be within a given region
wherein: the region comprises an object; and the repulsion potential field model is associated with an object state estimate that is indicative of a state of the object (Fig. 10B, Paragraph 0104)
a second VTOL aerial vehicle in a given region may be considered an object
the repulsion field model may indicate positioning of the second VTOL aerial vehicle relative to the first VTOL aerial vehicle
determine a repulsion vector, based at least in part on the repulsion potential field model and the state estimate (Figs. 10A, 10B, Paragraph 0104)
repulsion field model may indicate relative distancing and direction between two VTOL aerial vehicles, as well as a repulsion strength (repulsive force)
this can indicate a repulsion vector (direction and magnitude)
determine a collision avoidance velocity vector based at least in part on the speed vector and the repulsion vector (Fig. 10A, Paragraphs 0109-0113)
each VTOL aerial vehicle may experience a repulsive force when approaching other VTOL aerial vehicles
this repulsive force may have a given direction and is based on the state information of the given aerial vehicles
state information can include a velocity of the current vehicle
Fig. 10A also shows collision avoidance directions and associated velocity limits for a repulsion field model
determine an input vector based at least in part on input received by the pilot-operable controls, the input vector being indicative of an intended angular velocity of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle and an intended thrust of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle (Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0112-0113)
a pilot may provide an input for controlling the VTOL aerial vehicle
control inputs may be constrained by aircraft limits which can include velocity limits (forward, translational, rotational, etc.)
a pilot’s input may include a desired forward/translational and rotational velocity, each having their own relevant direction
determine a control vector based at least in part on the collision avoidance velocity vector and the input vector (Fig. 10A-10C, Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0109-0113)
a pilot’s input and a collision avoidance repulsive force may be used for determining appropriate controls for the VTOL aerial vehicle, see step 106c of Fig. 10C
control the propulsion system, based at least in part on the control vector, such that the manned VTOL aerial vehicle avoids the object (Fig. 10A-10C, Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0109-0113)
the VTOL aerial vehicle may be controlled based on the control signal generated (see step 106C in Fig. 10C)
Regarding claim 2,
Cutler discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Cutler further discloses the following:
the sensing system comprises a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) module configured to generate GNSS data that is indicative of a latitude and a longitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle (Paragraph 0039)
the VTOL aerial vehicle may utilize a GPS sensor in order to determine its latitude and longitude (GPS is a type of GNSS)
the sensor data comprises the GNSS data (Paragraph 0039)
the data acquired through the GPS sensor may be GNSS data (GPS is a type of GNSS)
wherein determining the state estimate comprises: determining the GNSS data (Paragraphs 0024-0027, 0039)
a VTOL aerial vehicle’s state may be determined based on its location
the location may be determined based on GPS data (GPS is a type of GNSS)
determining the state estimate based at least in part on the GNSS data (Paragraphs 0024-0027, 0039)
a VTOL aerial vehicle’s state may be determined based on its location
the location may be determined based on GPS data (GPS is a type of GNSS)
Regarding claim 14,
Cutler discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Cutler further discloses the following:
the object state estimate comprises one or more of: an object position estimate that is indicative of a position of the object within the region; an object speed vector that is indicative of a velocity of the object; and an object attitude vector that is indicative of an attitude of the object (Fig. 10B, Paragraph 0104)
a second VTOL aerial vehicle in a given region may be considered an object
the repulsion field model may indicate positioning of the second VTOL aerial vehicle relative to the first VTOL aerial vehicle
Regarding claim 17,
Cutler discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Cutler further discloses the following:
generating the repulsion potential field model comprises defining a first software-defined virtual boundary of the potential field model, the first software-defined virtual boundary surrounding the position estimate (Fig. 10A, Paragraphs 0103-0105)
a repulsive potential field may be generated for each VTOL aerial vehicle (a second one may be considered an object) to indicate relative positioning
the repulsive field is generated as a geofence which is a software-defined boundary
wherein a magnitude of the repulsion vector is a maximum when the object position estimate is on or within the first software-defined virtual boundary (Fig. 10A, Paragraphs 0103-0105)
the repulsive force is at a maximum when two VTOL aerial vehicles (a second one may be considered an object) are within each other’s repulsion field (geofence)
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 4, 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cutler, and in view of Liu et al., US 20160070265 A1, herein referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 4, Cutler discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Cutler further discloses the sensing system comprising at least one sensor (Paragraph 0039; VTOL aerial vehicle may include sensors utilized for control of the aircraft), but fails to disclose the sensing system comprising one or more of: an altimeter configured to provide, to the at least one processor, altitude data that is indicative of an altitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; an accelerometer configured to provide, to the at least one processor, accelerometer data that is indicative of an acceleration of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; a gyroscope configured to provide, to the at least one processor, gyroscopic data that is indicative of an orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; and a magnetometer sensor configured to provide, to the at least one processor, magnetic field data that is indicative of an azimuth orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; and wherein the sensor data comprises one or more of the altitude data, the acceleration data, the gyroscopic data and the magnetic field data; and wherein determining the state estimate comprises: determining one or more of the altitude data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data and magnetic field data; and determining the state estimate based at least in part on one or more of the altitude data, the accelerometer data, the gyroscopic data and the magnetic field data.
However, Liu, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the sensing system comprising one or more of: an altimeter configured to provide, to the at least one processor, altitude data that is indicative of an altitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; an accelerometer configured to provide, to the at least one processor, accelerometer data that is indicative of an acceleration of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; a gyroscope configured to provide, to the at least one processor, gyroscopic data that is indicative of an orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; and a magnetometer sensor configured to provide, to the at least one processor, magnetic field data that is indicative of an azimuth orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle (Paragraph 0075; a UAV may utilize numerous sensors to obtain data about the current UAV state; the sensors may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, and altitude sensors to determine acceleration, orientation, magnetic field data, and altitude, respectively), and wherein the sensor data comprises one or more of the altitude data, the acceleration data, the gyroscopic data and the magnetic field data (Paragraph 0075; a UAV may utilize numerous sensors to obtain data about the current UAV state; the sensors may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, and altitude sensors to determine acceleration, orientation, magnetic field data, and altitude, respectively), and wherein determining the state estimate comprises: determining one or more of the altitude data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data and magnetic field data; and determining the state estimate based at least in part on one or more of the altitude data, the accelerometer data, the gyroscopic data and the magnetic field data (a UAV may utilize numerous sensors to obtain data about the current UAV state; the sensors may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, and altitude sensors to determine acceleration, orientation, magnetic field data, and altitude, respectively).
Therefore, from the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the VTOL system of Cutler to include the sensing system comprising one or more of: an altimeter configured to provide, to the at least one processor, altitude data that is indicative of an altitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; an accelerometer configured to provide, to the at least one processor, accelerometer data that is indicative of an acceleration of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; a gyroscope configured to provide, to the at least one processor, gyroscopic data that is indicative of an orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; and a magnetometer sensor configured to provide, to the at least one processor, magnetic field data that is indicative of an azimuth orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; and wherein the sensor data comprises one or more of the altitude data, the acceleration data, the gyroscopic data and the magnetic field data; and wherein determining the state estimate comprises: determining one or more of the altitude data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data and magnetic field data; and determining the state estimate based at least in part on one or more of the altitude data, the accelerometer data, the gyroscopic data and the magnetic field data, as taught/suggested by Liu. The motivation to do so would be to utilize well-known sensors to determine a state of a VTOL aerial vehicle. This can lead to higher accuracy when controlling the VTOL aerial vehicle as the additional sensors may return higher quality data compared to that of the GPS. Additionally, this can allow for the vehicle to utilize a redundancy such that the overall state has a higher likelihood of being accurate.
Regarding claim 6, Cuter discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Cutler further discloses the sensing system comprising at least one sensor (Paragraph 0039; VTOL aerial vehicle may include sensors utilized for control of the aircraft), but fails to disclose the sensing system comprises an imaging module configured to provide, to the at least one processor, image data that is associated with the region; and the sensor data comprises the image data; wherein the imaging module comprises at least one of: a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system configured to generate LIDAR data; a visible spectrum imaging module configured to generate visible spectrum image data; or a radio detecting and ranging (RADAR) system configured to generate RADAR data; and wherein the image data comprises one or more of the LIDAR data, the visible image data and the RADAR data.
However, Liu teaches the sensing system comprises an imaging module configured to provide, to the at least one processor, image data that is associated with the region; and the sensor data comprises the image data (Paragraph 0079; vision sensors may be utilized for sensing and control of the UAV), wherein the imaging module comprises at least one of: a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system configured to generate LIDAR data; a visible spectrum imaging module configured to generate visible spectrum image data; or a radio detecting and ranging (RADAR) system configured to generate RADAR data (Paragraph 0079; vision sensors may include LIDAR which generates LIDAR data), and wherein the image data comprises one or more of the LIDAR data, the visible image data and the RADAR data (Paragraph 0079; vision sensor data may include the data acquired from the LIDAR sensor).
Therefore, from the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the VTOL system of Cutler to include the sensing system comprises an imaging module configured to provide, to the at least one processor, image data that is associated with the region; and the sensor data comprises the image data; wherein the imaging module comprises at least one of: a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system configured to generate LIDAR data; a visible spectrum imaging module configured to generate visible spectrum image data; or a radio detecting and ranging (RADAR) system configured to generate RADAR data; and wherein the image data comprises one or more of the LIDAR data, the visible image data and the RADAR data, as taught/suggested by Liu. The motivation to do so would be to utilize numerous well-known sensors in order to either provide redundancy or enable sensor fusion techniques for determining a state of the VTOL aerial vehicles. This can lead to higher accuracy when controlling the VTOL aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Cutler discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Cutler further discloses determining a state estimate that is indicative of a state of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle within a region around the manned VTOL aerial vehicle (Paragraphs 0075, 0077; the VTOL aerial vehicle’s state may be determined when it is present in a region), but fails to disclose determining the state estimate comprises: determining a longitudinal velocity estimate that is indicative of a longitudinal velocity of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on image data captured by a ground-facing camera mounted on the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; determining an acceleration estimate that is indicative of an acceleration of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on accelerometer data; determining an orientation estimate that is indicative of an orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on gyroscopic data; determining an azimuth orientation estimate of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on magnetic field data; and determining an altitude estimate that is indicative of an altitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on altitude data.
However, Liu teaches determining the state estimate comprises: determining a longitudinal velocity estimate that is indicative of a longitudinal velocity of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on image data captured by a ground-facing camera mounted on the manned VTOL aerial vehicle (Paragraph 0075; sensors may be used to determine states of the UAV and surrounding environment; LIDAR, depth cameras, etc. may be used to determine locations relative to the environment; depth cameras would need to be downward facing in some respect in order to obtain terrain depth information), determining an acceleration estimate that is indicative of an acceleration of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on accelerometer data (Paragraph 0075; an accelerometer may be used to determine the acceleration of the UAV), determining an orientation estimate that is indicative of an orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on gyroscopic data (Paragraph 0075; a gyroscope sensor may be utilized to determine inertial data of the UAV which can include orientation), determining an azimuth orientation estimate of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on magnetic field data (Paragraph 0075; a magnetometer may be utilized to determine an absolute azimuth angle of the UAV which corresponds to an azimuth orientation of the UAV), and determining an altitude estimate that is indicative of an altitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on altitude data (Paragraph 0075; an altitude sensor may be utilized to determine the altitude of the UAV).
Therefore, from the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the VTOL system of Cutler to include determining the state estimate comprises: determining a longitudinal velocity estimate that is indicative of a longitudinal velocity of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on image data captured by a ground-facing camera mounted on the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; determining an acceleration estimate that is indicative of an acceleration of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on accelerometer data; determining an orientation estimate that is indicative of an orientation of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on gyroscopic data; determining an azimuth orientation estimate of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on magnetic field data; and determining an altitude estimate that is indicative of an altitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle, based at least in part on altitude data, as taught/suggested by Liu. The motivation to do so would be to utilize numerous well-known sensors in order to either provide redundancy or enable sensor fusion techniques for determining a state of the VTOL aerial vehicles. This can lead to higher accuracy when controlling the VTOL aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Cutler discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Cutler further discloses determining a map for a region and determining an initial state estimate that is indicative of an estimated initial state of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle (Paragraphs 0039, 0075, 0077; the VTOL aerial vehicle’s state may be determined when it is present in a region; the VTOL aerial vehicle’s state may be considered an initial estimate when it is first obtained; a map of a region may be utilized to help a VTOL aerial vehicle determine its location), but fails to disclose determining the state estimate comprises: generating a three-dimensional point cloud representing the region; comparing the three-dimensional point cloud to a three-dimensional model of the region; and determining an updated state estimate based at least in part on a result of the comparing; and wherein the state estimate corresponds to the updated state estimate.
However, Liu teaches determining the state estimate comprises: generating a three-dimensional point cloud representing the region (Paragraphs 0075, 0079; LIDAR may be used to sense an environment; LIDAR produces a three-dimensional point cloud), comparing the three-dimensional point cloud to a three-dimensional model of the region (Paragraphs 0075, 0079, 0092; a previously obtained LIDAR point cloud of a region may be compared to a current LIDAR point cloud to determine possible updates to the map) and determining an updated state estimate based at least in part on a result of the comparing; and wherein the state estimate corresponds to the updated state estimate (Paragraphs 0075, 0079, 0092; a previously obtained LIDAR point cloud of a region may be compared to a current LIDAR point cloud to determine possible updates to the map).
Therefore, from the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the VTOL system of Cutler to include determining the state estimate comprises: generating a three-dimensional point cloud representing the region; comparing the three-dimensional point cloud to a three-dimensional model of the region; and determining an updated state estimate based at least in part on a result of the comparing; and wherein the state estimate corresponds to the updated state estimate, as taught/suggested by Liu. The motivation to do so would be to utilize a well-known sensor to create a map and then perform updates on the map based on current sensor data. This can allow for the VTOL aerial vehicle to operate based on the most recent data and can lead to an increase in control accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 70, 72-73, 77, 85, 87-89, 91, and 93 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the examiner has conducted a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest piece of prior art, US 20190180634 A1 by Cutler, discloses generating the repulsion potential field model comprises defining a first software-defined virtual boundary of the potential field model, the first software-defined virtual boundary surrounding the position estimate (Fig. 10A, Paragraphs 0103-0105; a repulsive potential field may be generated for each VTOL aerial vehicle (a second one may be considered an object) to indicate relative positioning, the repulsive field is generated as a geofence which is a software-defined boundary), and wherein a magnitude of the repulsion vector is a maximum when the object position estimate is on or within the first software-defined virtual boundary (Fig. 10A, Paragraphs 0103-0105; the repulsive force is at a maximum when two VTOL aerial vehicles (a second one may be considered an object) are within each other’s repulsion field (geofence)), but fails to disclose generating the repulsion potential field model comprises defining a second software-defined virtual boundary of the potential field model, the second software-defined virtual boundary surrounding the position estimate and the first software-defined virtual boundary; and wherein the magnitude of the repulsion vector is zero when the object position estimate is outside the second software-defined virtual boundary.
These features are novel in that it creates a series of zones surrounding an object which allow for varying levels of repulsive force between the object and an encroaching VTOL aerial vehicle. This can allow for alerts and evasive maneuvers to be utilized earlier during flight as the two successive virtual boundaries encompass a larger radius. This can also prevent large repulsive vectors from occurring suddenly by smoothing out the repulsive vector response where the repulsive magnitude changes are spread out over a larger distance and effectively have a lower rate of change (0 to max repulsive force occurs over a larger distance).
Regarding claim 19, the claim depends from claim 18 and contains the same object to as allowable subject matter of claim 18. As such, claim 19 is also objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 70, the examiner has conducted a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest piece of prior art, US 20190180634 A1 by Cutler, discloses a large portion of the claim limitations (similar to those in claim 1, see rationale above in 102 rejection), but fails to disclose determine a first state estimate and a first state estimate confidence metric, based at least in part on the gyroscopic data, the accelerometer data, the altitude data, the magnetic field data and the visible spectrum image data, wherein: the first state estimate is indicative of a first position, a first attitude and a first velocity of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle within the region; and the first state estimate confidence metric is indicative of a first error associated with the first state estimate; determine a second state estimate and a second state estimate confidence metric, based at least in part on the region point cloud, the first state estimate and the first state estimate confidence metric, wherein: the second state estimate is indicative of a second position, a second attitude and a second velocity of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle within the region; and the second state estimate confidence metric is indicative of a second error associated with the second state estimate; determine a third state estimate and a third state estimate confidence metric, based at least in part on the GNSS data, the gyroscopic data, the accelerometer data, the altitude data, the magnetic field data, the second state estimate and the second state estimate confidence metric, wherein: the third state estimate comprises: a position estimate that is indicative of a position of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle within the region; a speed vector that is indicative of a velocity of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; and an attitude vector that is indicative of an attitude of the manned VTOL aerial vehicle; and the third state estimate confidence metric is indicative of a third error associated with the third state estimate.
These features are novel in that first, second, and third state estimates are established based on position, velocity, and attitude, each of which are established by utilizing different sensors and previous state estimates and their confidence metric. This allows for a successive error reduction by utilizing previous states and their confidence metrics to inform the bounds of the next state and its confidence metric. This effectively performs sensor fusion in addition to error determination that can allow for highly accurate state determination and ultimately allows for highly accurate control of a VTOL aerial vehicle.
Regarding claims 72-73, 77, 85, 87-89, 91, 93 ultimately depend from claim 70 and contain the same allowed subject matter of claim 70. As such, claims 72-73, 77, 85, 87-89, 91, 93 are also allowed due to their dependency on claim 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658