DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 11/25/2025.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are now pending in this application . Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12-14, 16, 1720, and 21 have been amended. Claims 2, 9, 11, 15, 18, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, last 2 lines, replace “the detected gust that have been detected” with “the detected gust”
Claim 10, line 13, add “and” at the end of the line.
Claim 10, line 15, remove “and” at the end of the line.
Claim 10, line 19, add “and” at the end of the line.
Claim 10, line 20, add “wherein at the beginning of the line.
Claim 10, line 20, replace “unit configured” with “unit is further configured”
Claim 10, line 21, replace “close the airship” with “close to the airship”
Claim 10, last 2 lines, replace “the detected gust that have been detected” with “the detected gust”
Claim 10, remove the hyphens in the beginning of limitations for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 10,
an airship processing unit and an airship communication unit configured to respectively calculate and transmit instructions … ,
a drone processing unit… for collecting measured data or calculated data …,
a drone communication unit for transmitting the measured data thus collected from the drones to the airship …,
the airship processing unit is further configured to process the measured data …, and
the airship processing unit is further configured to detect, in advance …
In claim 13,
the drone processing unit is further configured to calculate …
In claim 16,
the airship processing unit is further configured to control, in real time, respective positions …
In claim 17,
the airship processing unit if further configured to manage ranges…
In claim 20,
an airship processing unit and an airship communication unit configured to respectively calculate and transmit … instructions … ,
a drone processing unit… for collecting …, the drone communication unit … configured to transmit …,
the airship processing unit is further configured to process …,
In claim 21,
the airship processing unit if further configured to manage a range …
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Applicant’s specification only indicates a processing unit in the airship in [0087]-[0088] of the published PGPUB.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-14, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitations listed above in independent claim 10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structure and/or a sufficient algorithm for performing the entire functions of the processing units and communication units claimed. The Applicant’s specification only indicates a processing unit in the airship in [0087]-[0088] of the published PGPUB. There is no indication of a communication unit for either of a drone or the airship (lack of structure). Moreover, the disclosure lacks sufficient algorithmic details to perform the functions related to the processing units.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The dependent claims do not recite additional limitations to overcome this issue. Furthermore, the dependent claims, listed above recite more limitations that are indefinite in view of the lack of sufficient structure and/or algorithm for performing the entire claimed functions recited in the limitations that invoke35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Refer to the list of phrases indicated above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-14, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Since claim limitations indicated above in independent claim 10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function (see Claim interpretation and Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, above), these limitations also lack adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. More specifically, the description provided in the disclosure and indicated above does not provide sufficient explanation as to at least how the calculation, transmission, collection, detection, and/or processing would be performed. See MPEP 2163.03 VI.
The dependent claims do not recite additional limitations to overcome this issue. Furthermore, the dependent claims, listed above recite more limitations for which there is a lack of sufficient structure and/or algorithm, in the specifications, for performing the entire claimed functions recited in the limitations that invoke35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Again, refer to the list of phrases indicated above and the mere specification support for a processing unit in the airship.
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 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black (as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively) in view of Parodi, US Patent 10,891,868 B1 (hereinafter as Parodi), Goelet et al., US PGPUB 2015/0291269 Al (hereinafter as Goelet), and Hendrian et al., US PGPUB 2019/0147753 A1 (hereinafter as Hendrian), and.
Regarding independent claim 1, Black teaches a method for characterizing, in real time, atmospheric conditions in the environment of an airship [note from the title the determination of atmospheric conditions during a flight; note the option of an airship for the aircraft 102 indicated in [0055]], the method comprising the following steps:
deploying, at a distance from the airship, a plurality of drones carrying equipment for characterizing atmospheric conditions [see fig. 2 showing the deployment of multiple atmospheric condition-detecting vehicles as indicated also in step 500 of fig. 5; note from steps 500, 502 and 506 the positioning of the condition-detecting vehicles to a predetermined separation range from the aircraft; note from [0025] that the condition-detecting vehicle may be a drone; note from [0030] that these vehicles include parameter sensors; note also in the 4 last lines of [0046] the deployment of a plurality of atmospheric condition-detecting vehicles],
calculating and transmitting instructions for the positioning of each drone with respect to the airship [again, note from steps 500, 502 and 506 the positioning of the condition-detecting vehicles to a predetermined separation range from the aircraft; note also the transmitting of instructions for positioning the condition-detecting vehicles in [0037]],
collecting, at one or more of the drones, measured data or calculated data regarding atmospheric variables generated by the characterization equipment and data regarding the positioning of the one or more drones [note in step 504 of fig. 5 the collection of atmospheric parameters; see also [0039] and [0058] indicating the detection of atmospheric conditions as well as outputting position data signals regarding the position of the condition-detecting vehicles; see also [0012]],
transmitting the measured data thus collected from these one or more drones to the airship [note in [0040] as well as step 508 of fig. 5 the transmission of the atmospheric parameters collected/measured by the sensors to the aircraft 102], and
processing the measured data thus transmitted so as to identify one or more atmospheric phenomena liable to affect the static and/or dynamic behavior of the aircraft [again, see [0040] indicating displaying, in the aircraft, identified atmospheric conditions in which the aircraft is operated, the conditions being based on the received data signals and the position data; note the computer 108 in the aircraft, also shown in fig. 1; Examiner notes that the atmospheric conditions in which the aircraft is operating is liable to affect the static and/or dynamic behavior of the aircraft; see exemplary conditions in [0004] such as turbulence and in [0007] such as static air pressure, temperature, and humidity, all of which being conditions affecting the static and/or dynamic behavior of the aircraft].
Black further teaches detecting, in advance:
pressure and/or temperature in an environment close to the aircraft liable to affect a static lift of the airship [note in [0007] the pressure and temperature sensors (in the condition-detecting vehicle(s)) configured to detect static air pressure and air temperature, respectively; see also [0039] and [0051]; note that the sensors continuously detect these measurements during the flight in real-time, as noted in the loop in fig. 5 as well as in the last 4 lines in [0060] thus detecting pressure and/or temperature in the environment close to the aircraft liable to affect a static lift during the course of the flight], and
an occurrence of a certain atmospheric condition at a distance from the airship, to be transmitted to the airship [note again in [0039]-[0040] the identification of certain environmental conditions related to certain sensor reading and positional readings indicating the distance from the aircraft; see also fig. 2 showing a maintained distance between the aircraft and the drone (carrying the sensors); note maintaining the distance as e.g. in [0049]; note again in [0040] as well as step 508 of fig. 5 the transmission of the atmospheric parameters collected/measured by the sensors to the aircraft 102].
Black, however, does not explicitly teach:
a) that the airship is equipped with electric propellers and fans, the airship being stationary in order to perform loading or unloading operations over a site;
b) the detection, in advance, of a variation in pressure and/or temperature in an environment close to the aircraft liable to affect a static lift of the aircraft;
c) the detection of an occurrence of a gust of wind to be transmitted to the electric propellers and fans so as to anticipate and minimize effects of the detected gust that has been detected.
[Note: Numbering has been introduced by the Examiner to facilitate readability].
Parodi teaches b) detection of a variation in pressure and/or temperature in an environment of an aerial vehicle liable to affect a static lift of the aerial vehicle [note, e.g. in col. 17, lines 34-37, the detection of a change of temperature surrounding an aerial vehicle; note the sensors for temperature and pressure indicated in cal. 7, lines 64-67 and col. 8, lines 25-30 and the processing related to the sensor measurements in col. 8, lines 41-46; see also col. 19, lines 8-10; see figs. 4A-4B and the description of a lift generated by a change in air pressure in col. 1, lines 13-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Black and Parodi, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection, in advance, in pressure and/or temperature in an environment close to the aircraft liable to affect a static lift of the aircraft, in the teachings of Black, by explicitly specifying the detection of the variation in pressure and/or temperature, as per the teachings of Parodi. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to better enable maintaining the aerial vehicles aloft by determining variations rather than absolute values of the variables being sensed/calculated, as suggested by Parodi [see e.g. col. 1, lines 13-15].
Black/Parodi, still does explicitly teach limitations a) and c) above.
Goelet teaches a) an airship that is equipped with electric propellers and fans, the airship being stationary in order to perform loading or unloading operations over a site [note, e.g. in [0067] the propellers and fans; note from [0066] that the power source 48 driving the propulsion may be electric motors; see also [0009]-[0010] indicating a hover operation in which an aircraft is maintained at a particular hovering position for receiving or delivering cargo at different locations].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Black and Goelet before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the airship taught by Goelet that is equipped with electric propellers and fans, the airship being stationary in order to perform loading or unloading operations over a site, for the generic airship taught by Black as an exemplary aircraft to reach the recited limitation. Because Black teaches a method for characterizing environmental conditions for an aircraft but doesn’t specifically discuss an airship according to the characteristics taught by Goelet, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make a simple substitution of one known form of airship for another to generate the predictive result of enabling an improved flight planning and easing control of an airship during a hovering maneuver such as that taught by Goelet and used for loading or unloading operations over a site utilizing the propulsion system to generate aerodynamic lift necessary to stay aloft, as also suggested by Goelet [see [0006] and [0009]-[0010]].
See MPEP 2143 I B.
Black/Parodi/Goelet, still does explicitly teach limitation a) above.
Hendrian teaches the detection, in advance, of a gust of wind so as to anticipate and minimize the effects of the detected gusts [note in fig. 1 the measurements 112 including wind measurements as well as the wind calculator 108 including wind vectors that encompass magnitude and direction of the calculated wind; note also the identification of turbulence in lateral and vertical terms as indicated in [0115]; note also the prediction for a future time in [0025]; note in [0026] the desire to make corrections to reduce effects of turbulence; Examiner notes that a turbulent occurrence would include a gust of wind; note also the real-time wind analysis indicated in [0062]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Black, Goelet, and Hendrian, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify that the atmospheric condition identified at a distance from the aircraft is a gust of wind, as per the teachings of Hendrian, and to further specify transmitting the occurrence of gust to the electric propellers and fans taught by Goelet. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable taking different severe weather considerations into account (including the reduction of encountered turbulence), as suggested by Hendrian [see e.g. [0091] and [0005]; see also [0026]].
Regarding independent claim 10, Black teaches a system for characterizing, in real time, atmospheric conditions in the environment of an airship [note from the title the system for determining of atmospheric conditions during a flight; note the option of an airship for the aircraft 102 indicated in [0055]; see also figs. 1 and 2], the system comprising:
- a plurality of drones carrying equipment for characterizing atmospheric conditions, the drones being configured to be deployed at a distance from the airship [see fig. 2 showing the deployment of multiple atmospheric condition-detecting vehicles as indicated also in step 500 of fig. 5; note from steps 500, 502 and 506 the positioning of the condition-detecting vehicles to a predetermined separation range from the aircraft; note from [0025] that the condition-detecting vehicle may be a drone; note from [0030] that these vehicles include parameter sensors; note also in the 4 last lines of [0046] the deployment of a plurality of atmospheric condition-detecting vehicles],
- within the airship, an airship processing unit and an airship communication unit configured to respectively calculate and transmit instructions for the positioning of each of the drones with respect to the airship [again, note from steps 500, 502 and 506 the positioning of the condition-detecting vehicles to a predetermined separation range from the aircraft; note also the transmitting of instructions for positioning the condition-detecting vehicles in [0037]],
- a drone processing unit, carried in one or more of the drones, for collecting measured data or calculated data regarding atmospheric variables generated by the equipment for characterizing the atmospheric conditions and data regarding the positioning of the drones [note in step 504 of fig. 5 the collection of atmospheric parameters; see also [0039] and [0058] indicating the detection of atmospheric conditions as well as outputting position data signals regarding the position of the condition-detecting vehicles; see also [0012]; especially note from fig. 1, that the different sensors and control unit are part of the condition-detecting vehicle 104], and
- a drone communication unit for transmitting the measured data thus collected from the drones to the airship [note in [0040] as well as step 508 of fig. 5 the transmission of the atmospheric parameters collected/measured by the sensors to the aircraft 102], a
wherein the airship processing unit is further configured to process the measured data transmitted by the drone communication unit to the airship so as to identify one or more atmospheric phenomena liable to affect static and/or dynamic behavior of the aircraft [again, see [0040] indicating displaying, in the aircraft, identified atmospheric conditions in which the aircraft is operated, the conditions being based on the received data signals and the position data; note the computer 108 in the aircraft, also shown in fig. 1; Examiner notes that the atmospheric conditions in which the aircraft is operating is liable to affect the static and/or dynamic behavior of the aircraft; see exemplary conditions in [0004] such as turbulence and in [0007] such as static air pressure, temperature, and humidity, all of which being conditions affecting the static and/or dynamic behavior of the aircraft], and
wherein the airship processing unit is further configured to detect, in advance:
pressure and/or temperature in an environment close to the aircraft liable to affect a static lift of the airship [note in [0007] the pressure and temperature sensors (in the condition-detecting vehicle(s)) configured to detect static air pressure and air temperature, respectively; see also [0039] and [0051]; note that the sensors continuously detect these measurements during the flight in real-time, as noted in the loop in fig. 5 as well as in the last 4 lines in [0060] thus detecting pressure and/or temperature in the environment close to the aircraft liable to affect a static lift during the course of the flight], and
an occurrence of a certain atmospheric condition at a distance from the airship, to be transmitted to the airship [note again in [0039]-[0040] the identification of certain environmental conditions related to certain sensor reading and positional readings indicating the distance from the aircraft; see also fig. 2 showing a maintained distance between the aircraft and the drone (carrying the sensors); note maintaining the distance as e.g. in [0049]; note again in [0040] as well as step 508 of fig. 5 the transmission of the atmospheric parameters collected/measured by the sensors to the aircraft 102].
Black, however, does not explicitly teach:
a) that the airship is equipped with electric propellers and fans, the airship being stationary in order to perform loading or unloading operations over a site;
b) the detection, in advance, of a variation in pressure and/or temperature in an environment close to the aircraft liable to affect a static lift of the aircraft;
c) the detection of an occurrence of a gust of wind to be transmitted to the electric propellers and fans so as to anticipate and minimize effects of the detected gust that has been detected.
[Note: Numbering has been introduced by the Examiner to facilitate readability].
Parodi teaches b) detection of a variation in pressure and/or temperature in an environment of an aerial vehicle liable to affect a static lift of the aerial vehicle [note, e.g. in col. 17, lines 34-37, the detection of a change of temperature surrounding an aerial vehicle; note the sensors for temperature and pressure indicated in cal. 7, lines 64-67 and col. 8, lines 25-30 and the processing related to the sensor measurements in col. 8, lines 41-46; see also col. 19, lines 8-10; see figs. 4A-4B and the description of a lift generated by a change in air pressure in col. 1, lines 13-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Black and Parodi, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection, in advance, in pressure and/or temperature in an environment close to the aircraft liable to affect a static lift of the aircraft, in the teachings of Black, by explicitly specifying the detection of the variation in pressure and/or temperature, as per the teachings of Parodi. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to better enable maintaining the aerial vehicles aloft by determining variations rather than absolute values of the variables being sensed/calculated, as suggested by Parodi [see e.g. col. 1, lines 13-15].
Black/Parodi, still does explicitly teach limitations a) and c) above.
Goelet teaches a) an airship that is equipped with electric propellers and fans, the airship being stationary in order to perform loading or unloading operations over a site [note, e.g. in [0067] the propellers and fans; note from [0066] that the power source 48 driving the propulsion may be electric motors; see also [0009]-[0010] indicating a hover operation in which an aircraft is maintained at a particular hovering position for receiving or delivering cargo at different locations].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Black and Goelet before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the airship taught by Goelet that is equipped with electric propellers and fans, the airship being stationary in order to perform loading or unloading operations over a site, for the generic airship taught by Black as an exemplary aircraft to reach the recited limitation. Because Black teaches instructions for characterizing environmental conditions for an airship but doesn’t specifically discuss an airship according to the characteristics taught by Goelet, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make a simple substitution of one known form of airship for another to generate the predictive result of enabling an improved flight planning and easing control of an airship during a hovering maneuver such as that taught by Goelet and used for loading or unloading operations over a site utilizing the propulsion system to generate aerodynamic lift necessary to stay aloft, as also suggested by Goelet [see [0006] and [0009]-[0010]].
See MPEP 2143 I B.
Black/Parodi/Goelet, still does explicitly teach limitation a) above.
Hendrian teaches the detection, in advance, of a gust of wind so as to anticipate and minimize the effects of the detected gusts [note in fig. 1 the measurements 112 including wind measurements as well as the wind calculator 108 including wind vectors that encompass magnitude and direction of the calculated wind; note also the identification of turbulence in lateral and vertical terms as indicated in [0115]; note also the prediction for a future time in [0025]; note in [0026] the desire to make corrections to reduce effects of turbulence; Examiner notes that a turbulent occurrence would include a gust of wind; note also the real-time wind analysis indicated in [0062]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Black, Goelet, and Hendrian, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify that the atmospheric condition identified at a distance from the aircraft is a gust of wind, as per the teachings of Hendrian, and to further specify transmitting the occurrence of gust to the electric propellers and fans taught by Goelet. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable taking different severe weather considerations into account (including the reduction of encountered turbulence), as suggested by Hendrian [see e.g. [0091] and [0005]; see also [0026]].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 are respectively incorporated.
Hendrian further teaches that {the data collected in one or more of the drones comprises measured data regarding the speed and strength of the wind experienced by the one or more drones} / {at least one of the drones comprises a sensor configured to measure a speed and a strength of wind experienced by the at least one of the drones} [note e.g. in [0033]-[0035] the indication of wind measurements 128 taken by wind speed sensors 124 on the unmanned aerial vehicle 106; note also the wind vectors being measure thus indicating both direction and magnitude].
Please refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 10 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 are respectively incorporated.
Hendrian further teaches that {the data collected in one or more of the drones comprises calculated data regarding the speed and strength of the wind experienced by the one or more drones} / {the drone processing unit is further configured to calculate a speed and a strength of wind experienced by the at least one of the drones} [note e.g. in [0036] the indication of calculated wind vectors (via controllers of the unmanned aerial vehicle) based on measuring micro winds within the region].
Please refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 10 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Parodi, Goelet, and Hendrian, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of DITTBERNER et al., US PGPUB 2018/0292374 A1 (hereinafter as DITTBERNER) and “Barbieri, Lindsay, et al. "Intercomparison of small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) measurements for atmospheric science during the LAPSE-RATE campaign." Sensors 19.9 (2019): 2179” (hereinafter as Sensors 2019).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
The previously cited art does not explicitly teach that the calculated data regarding the speed and strength of the wind experienced by the one or more drones is obtained by measuring current drawn by electric motors driving rotors of the one or more drones to obtain current measurements, and the method further comprises processing the current measurements in combination with positioning data and performance curves for the one or more drones to estimate the strength and direction of the wind.
DITTBERNER teaches calculating the speed and the strength of wind comprising measuring current drawn by an electric motor driving a rotor of a drone to obtain current measurements [note in [0038] the extraction of wind direction and speed from currents fed to the engines rotating the propellers of a drone].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and DITTBERNER, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly modify the method taught by Black and modified by Hendrian to calculate wind speed and strength by further explicitly specifying that calculating the speed and the strength of the wind comprises measuring current drawn by an electric motor driving a rotor of a drone to obtain current measurements, as per the teachings of DITTBERNER. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable benefiting from available measurements such as current that reflects the wind drag affecting the drone, as suggested by DITTBERNER [see e.g. the second half of [0038]].
Although Black teaches processing measurement in combination with positioning data [again, see [0039]-[0040]] which would enable accurate position mapping of atmospheric conditions and locations where they are sensed, the previously combined art, still, does not explicitly teach processing the current measurements in combination with positioning data and performance curves for the one or more drones to estimate the strength and direction of the wind.
Sensors 2019 teaches processing motor response utilizing a calibrated conversion to attain the strength and direction of wind [see the last4 lines of the paragraph ending at the top portion of p. 23].
Sensors 2019’s known utilization of calibrated conversion (which is a performance quantification measure) to attain wind strength and direction from the drone motor responses is applicable to the current drawn by an electric motor driving a rotor of a drone to obtain current measurements in the teachings of DITTBERNER.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Sensors 2019’s technique of utilization of a performance quantification measure to the framework of Black modified by Hendrian and DITTBERNER would have yielded the predictable results of attaining wind readings that match the equipment used for data measurements, by taking into account any necessary calibration conversion to obtain more accurate physical quantities.
The rationale for the combination would be that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known invention that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See MPEP 2143 I.D.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Parodi, Goelet, and Hendrian, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iynoolkhan et al., US Patent No. 11,012,526 B1 (hereinafter as Iynoolkhan).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Black does not explicitly teach, prior to the step of deploying the plurality of drones, planning a deployment of the plurality of drones according to weather forecast information received in the airship.
Iynoolkhan teaches prior to the step of deploying a plurality of drones, planning a deployment of the plurality of drones according to weather forecast information received [note e.g. in col. 8, lines 42-55 deploying a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles based on received weather-related conditions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Iynoolkhan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly apply the teaching of Iynoolkhan of planning, a priori, a deployment of a plurality of drones according to weather forecast information received to the deployment of the plurality of drones based on a deploying aircraft trigger as that taught by Black. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable customized deployment (possibly in terms of number and capabilities of UAVs) based on specific received conditions, as suggested by Iynoolkhan [again, see col. 8, lines 42-55].
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Parodi, Goelet, and Hendrian, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Tofte et al., US PGPUB 2021/0192629 A1 (hereinafter as Tofte).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 are respectively incorporated.
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach controlling, in real time, respective positions of the deployed drones in response to identified atmospheric phenomena.
Tofte teaches controlling, in real time, a position of a deployed drone in response to identified atmospheric phenomena [note e.g. in [0080] the causing of a UAV to navigate to a particular location when certain atmospheric conditions are identified (through certain determination and analysis of processed data)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Tofte, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly apply the teaching of Tofte of controlling, in real time, a position of a deployed drone in response to identified atmospheric phenomena to the plurality of drones taught by Black. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable mitigating the impact of a potential catastrophic condition in real time by collecting more data as needed using the deployed drone, as suggested by Tofte [see e.g. [0006] as well as [0080]].
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Parodi, Goelet, and Hendrian, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Ivanov et al., US PGPUB 2020/0233439 A1 (hereinafter as Ivanov).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 are respectively incorporated.
The previously combined does not explicitly teach managing ranges of the drones according to information regarding an amount of energy stored in the drones, respectively.
Ivanov teaches (means for) managing ranges of a drone according to information regarding an amount of energy stored in the drone [note e.g. in the last 8 lines of [0077] managing routing of a drone (including possibly flying a shorter route) depending at least partially on the energy level of the drone; see also [0083] describing conserving energy and choosing routes accordingly; Examiner notes that this route/range management teaching entails an algorithm and a processor for performing it].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Ivanov, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly apply the teaching of Ivanov of managing ranges of a drone according to information regarding an amount of energy stored in the drone to the plurality of drones taught by Black. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enhance energy conservation thus extending a range of each available drone, as suggested by Ivanov [see e.g. [0083]].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Parodi, Goelet, and Hendrian, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of DITTBERNER.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated.
The previously cited art does not explicitly teach that at least one of the drones includes a current measurement device configured to measure current drawn by an electric motor driving a rotor of the at least one of the drones to obtain current measurements.
DITTBERNER teaches calculating the speed and the strength of wind comprising measuring current drawn by an electric motor driving a rotor of a drone to obtain current measurements [note in [0038] the use of a sensor to extract wind direction and speed from currents fed to the engines rotating the propellers of a drone].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and DITTBERNER, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly modify the system taught by Black and modified by Hendrian to calculate wind speed and strength by further explicitly specifying that calculating the speed and the strength of the wind comprises measuring current drawn by an electric motor driving a rotor of a drone to obtain current measurements, as per the teachings of DITTBERNER. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable benefiting from available measurements such as current that reflects the wind drag affecting the drone, as suggested by DITTBERNER [see e.g. the second half of [0038]].
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Parodi, Goelet, and Hendrian, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bateman, US Patent No. 11,948,467 B2 (hereinafter as Bateman).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of independent claim 10 is fully incorporated.
Black further teaches an airship equipped with a system for characterizing atmospheric conditions [again, note from the title the system for determining of atmospheric conditions during a flight; especially note the aircraft 102 of fig. 4, also shown in figs. 1 and 2; note the option of an airship for the aircraft 102 indicated in [0055]], the aircraft comprising:
an airship hold accommodating a plurality of drones provided with on-board equipment for characterizing atmospheric conditions [see e.g. [0026] indicating storage space with the aircraft for the atmospheric conditions-detecting vehicles],
an airship processing unit and an airship communication unit configured to respectively calculate and transmit, to all or some of the drones, instructions for the positioning of each of the drones with respect to the airship [again, note from steps 500, 502 and 506 the positioning of the condition-detecting vehicles to a predetermined separation range from the aircraft; note also the transmitting of instructions for positioning the condition-detecting vehicles in [0037]], and
a drone processing unit for collecting information on atmospheric variables and on positioning determined in each of the drones and a drone communication unit in each of the drones configured to transmit the information from each of the drones to the airship [note in step 504 of fig. 5 the collection of atmospheric parameters; see also [0039] and [0058] indicating the detection of atmospheric conditions as well as outputting position data signals regarding the position of the condition-detecting vehicles; see also [0012]; especially note from fig. 1, that the different sensors and control unit are part of the condition-detecting vehicle 104 (the drone); note in [0040] as well as step 508 of fig. 5 the transmission of the atmospheric parameters collected/measured by the sensors to the aircraft 102],
wherein the airship processing unit is further configured to process the determined atmospheric-related and positioning information thus collected to identify one or more atmospheric conditions at a distance from the airship [note again in [0039]-[0040] the identification of certain environmental conditions related to certain sensor reading and positional readings indicating the distance from the aircraft; see also fig. 2 showing a maintained distance between the aircraft and the drone (carrying the sensors); note maintaining the distance as e.g. in [0049]].
Goelet further teaches an airship that is equipped with electric propellers and fans, the airship being stationary in order to perform loading or unloading operations over a site [note, e.g. in [0067] the propellers and fans; note from [0066] that the power source 48 driving the propulsion may be electric motors; see also [0009]-[0010] indicating a hover operation in which an aircraft is maintained at a particular hovering position for receiving or delivering cargo at different locations].
See the rejection of clam 10 for combining Black and Goelet.
Hendrian further collected information on wind strength and direction [note in fig. 1 the measurements 112 including wind measurements as well as the wind calculator 108 including wind vectors that encompass magnitude and direction of the calculated wind;].
The previously combined art, however, does not explicitly teach processing the determined wind information and positioning information thus collected to identify one or more wind accelerations at a distance from the aircraft.
See the rejection of clam 10 for combining Black and Hendrian.
Bateman teaches the collection of information (via drones) on wind strength and direction [note the collection of sensor measurements from sensors onboard drone 25 shown in fig. 1, as indicated in col. 3, lines 16-19; especially note wind direction and wind speed in the parameter of interest at a certain time as shown on the top right of col. 8; see also col. 7, lines 19-23 and col. 9, lines 11-14].
Bateman further teaches processing the determined wind information thus collected to identify one or more wind accelerations [note e.g. from col. 4, lines 56-65 indicating the determination of different wind conditions of different accelerations such as steady wind, turbulence, and discrete gusts; note the exemplary processing indicated in col. 10, lines 28-40 including wind state estimations including accelerations; see also col. 10, line 60-col. 11, line 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Bateman, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specify processing the determined wind information thus collected to identify one or more wind accelerations, as per the teachings of Bateman. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable the use of low-cost small unmanned aircraft systems (such as drones) to perform dedicated atmospheric missions to enhance the mitigation of weather hazards, to optimize air vehicle operations, and to improve weather modeling approaches, as suggested by Bateman [see e.g. col. 1, line 46-57].
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 above is fully incorporated. Black further teaches managing a range of at least one of the drones [see e.g. [0038] indicating the control of a propulsion system to maintain a desired separation range associated with an atmospheric conditions-detecting vehicle during flight].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in regards to the previously presented various informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant, however, is kindly requested to address the newly addressed minor informalities, as presented above.
Regarding the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Examiner respectfully notes that the terms “communication unit configured to” and “processing unit configured to” are still recited in claims 10, 13, 16, 17, 20, and 21. Thus, the claim interpretations are accordingly reasserted by the Examiner.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant is also referred to the updated rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) presented above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Neff, US PGPUB 20210171177 A1, which teaches utilizing airships that stay afloat in a stationary position and have fans and propellers [see e.g. front figure as well as abstract].
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 MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172