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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received amendments to the claims and corresponding remarks with request for continued examination (RCE) dated 25 February 2026 in response to the final rejection office action dated 29 August 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like).
The examiner notes that the basis for the amended claim language may be found in, for instance, paragraph [0014] of the instant application wherein applicant states "…the circuitry for increasing or decreasing power to one or more rotors of the UAV may be proportional to the initial velocity of the UAV and the change in position of the control trigger." Thus, no new matter has been entered.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. However, for completeness, the examiner reviewed the arguments presented by the applicant on pages 10-14 of the remarks dated 25 February 2026 but respectfully does not find the arguments persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of references previously presented does not read upon the newly-added limitations in the independent claims, nor increasing/decreasing power based on both the initial velocity and change in position of the control trigger. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner is interpreting the newly-added limitation of the independent claims (claim 1 used as an example) under plain meaning:
"…increasing or decreasing power to one or more rotors of the UAV based on the initial velocity and detected change in position of the control trigger such that for a particular change in position of the control trigger, a first increase or decrease of the power based on a first initial velocity is less than a second increase or decrease of the power based on a second initial velocity, the second initial velocity is greater than the first initial velocity…"
The examiner prepared the following basic graph to outline the following explanation:
PNG
media_image1.png
264
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above graph outlines the newly-added limitation; a first change in power (dP1) at a lower first initial velocity (Vi1) is smaller/less than a second change in power (dP2) at a higher initial velocity (Vi2). In light of the above explanation, this merely restates the previously-presented limitation that immediately follows the new limitation:
"…wherein the increasing or decreasing power to one or more rotors of the UAV is proportional to the initial velocity of the UAV and the change in position of the control trigger." As can be seen in the above graph, the newly-added limitation merely restates analogous subject matter, that the power change is proportional to the initial velocity, which was previously presented by the examiner as being unpatentable over the prior art of note.
To summarize the examiner's position, the primary prior art of note discloses the claimed invention of the independent instant claims (changing the acceleration/power according to trigger position, to over-summarize, but limitations are more specifically described below) with the exception of a dependence upon an initial velocity of the vehicle for acceleration/power delivery. However, the secondary art of note reads upon this limitation, as Dastoor et al. (US 2020/0148063 A1; previously presented, hereinafter Dastoor) teaches the following:
The particular type of vehicle is not particularly limited (Paragraph [0028], "However, the vehicle 100 can have any other suitable form factor or be any other suitable vehicle", as a mere example).
The vehicle is controlled based on a throttle map, correlating input variables with output variables, including multi-dimension maps, with a plurality of input and/or output values. The input variables include a throttle value (analogous to the trigger position, as it is an analogous throttle) and the output value may be a vehicle output value, such as power output and/or acceleration. The throttle map linearly correlates the relationship between a throttle input (in addition to the multi-dimensional input as disclosed) and an output variable (power and/or acceleration) (Paragraph [0025]).
The throttle may be a trigger and the input value depends upon a displacement of the trigger (a position) (Paragraph [0034]).
Finally, Dastoor teaches differential control based on vehicle speed, wherein the output values (power and/or acceleration) can be adjusted base on measured vehicle velocity and states "For example, at high speeds, a slight lean or adjustment in load weight [examiner note, an input variable, analogous to the trigger position] can result in a large turn response [examiner note, an output variable, analogous to the power/acceleration], while the same lean at low speeds can result in a small turn response." (Describing a directly proportional relationship). A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that, due to the explicit verbiage "For example…", that analogous rationale may be applied to the other input and output variables of note, as presented in the above examiner notes.
The examiner also notes that Dastoor teaches a rationale to utilize the maps, stating that a user with less familiarity/skill with a particular vehicle may more easily operate it with the map (Dastoor, Paragraph [0003-0004, 0022]).
Thus, the examiner submits that the combination of references continues to read upon the amended claim set, as the amended claim limitations found in the independent claims are merely a restatement in alternative language of the limitation immediately following them that was previously presented. Merely restating the language previously presented in alternative terms does not delineate the claimed invention from the prior art of note.
New grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, are presented below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is contained in the remarks file dated 25 February 2026. In this claim set, claims 1-33 are presented. Following restriction, claims 14-16, 30-32, and 34 were withdrawn from consideration as claims 1-13, 17-29, and 33 were elected. Claims 1-13, 17-29, and 33 are pending and rejected, as described below. Claims 1, 17, and 33 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Virtual gearing is described in specification paragraphs [0061-0067], for instance. As the term is not explicitly defined, the examiner is interpreting the "virtual" gearing to include any form of translation from an input to an output (transmission) using some form of computer-determined or -executed means (virtual). The examiner notes that, as described in the instant application, the presence of a physical gear is not required. Thus, when examining the claim set for "gears", the examiner is considering any form of translation from an input to an output to read on this term.
Further, an "infinite" virtual gear shifting mechanism is considered to be any form of translation from an input to an output (transmission) using some form of computer-determined or -executed means (virtual) with a plurality of ratios. The examiner is considering the term "infinite" to be a mere name describing an input/output device that is variable (as the components noted in the instant application have bitrates, minimum adjustment values, etc. that prevent a true "infinite" variable). See instant application paragraph [0075].
Further, an "automatic" virtual gear shifting mechanism may be considered any translation of an input to an output in an automatic manner.
Further, claims pertaining to an "infinite" gear shifting mechanism and an "automatic" gear shifting mechanism are not necessarily subject to restriction at this time, as the examiner notes that broad interpretation does not necessarily make these two "types" of gear shifting mechanisms mutually exclusive.
As noted in the prior office action and the rationale found in the corresponding claim rejection below, the subject matter found in claims 2-3 and 18-19 are considered obvious variants of one another.
Claims 1, 17, and 33 reference a "desired positive acceleration or a desired negative acceleration"; the examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that positive acceleration increases the speed of the UAV and negative acceleration decreases the speed of the UAV or drives the UAV in reverse with reference to a standard "forward" direction.
The examiner notes that recitation of "circuitry" in claims 17-23 contains sufficient structure to not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as the term circuit, combined with the description of the function of the circuit conveys sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2181.I.A and Mass. Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1355-1356, 80 USPQ2d at 1332, for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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 1, 6-13, 17, 22-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohlarik et al. (US 2018/0181115 A1; hereinafter Ohlarik) in view of Dastoor et al. (US 2020/0148063 A1; hereinafter Dastoor).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 17 (system), and 33 (computer product): Ohlarik discloses A method for providing adaptive speed control of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in transitions between velocities, and between accelerations, the method comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0003, 0020, 0052, 0065], Claim [10], and Figure [1, 7], Ohlarik discloses a method for changing the speed of a UAV; by controlling the speeding up and slowing down, it is controlling the speed in transitions between velocities and changes the amount of acceleration per operator input (between accelerations)) / A system for providing adaptive speed control of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in transitions between velocities, and between accelerations, the system comprising: (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0020, 0052, 0065] and Figure [1, 7], Ohlarik discloses a system for changing the speed of a UAV; by controlling the speeding up and slowing down, it is controlling the speed in transitions between velocities and changes the amount of acceleration per operator input (between accelerations)) / A non-transitory computer program readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (per claim 33) (Paragraph [0020, 0033, 0039-0040, 0052, 0065], Claim [16], and Figure [1, 7], Ohlarik discloses a system containing memory to execute a method responsible for changing the speed of a UAV; by controlling the speeding up and slowing down, it is controlling the speed in transitions between velocities and changes the amount of acceleration per operator input (between accelerations))
determining an initial velocity of the UAV; (per claim 1) / circuitry configured to determine an initial velocity of the UAV; (per claim 17) / determine an initial velocity of a UAV; (per claim 33) (Paragraph [0044] and Claim [13, 20], Ohlarik discloses determining linear velocity during flight operations, any point in time of this data may constitute “initial velocity”)
detecting a change in position of a control trigger, wherein the control trigger is operable to control acceleration of the UAV, and wherein the change in position of the control trigger signals a desired positive acceleration or a desired negative acceleration of the UAV; and (per claim 1) / circuitry configured to detect a change in position of a control trigger, wherein the control trigger is operable to control acceleration of the UAV, and wherein the change in position of the control trigger signals a desired positive acceleration or a desired negative acceleration of the UAV; and (per claim 17) / detect a change in position of a control trigger, wherein the control trigger is operable to control acceleration of the UAV, and wherein the change in position of the control trigger signals a desired positive acceleration or a desired negative acceleration of the UAV; and (per claim 33) (Paragraph [0020, 0052, 0065] and Figure [1], Ohlarik discloses that a change in position of the speed trigger controls the UAV to speed up or slow down (accelerate or decelerate))
increasing or decreasing power to one or more rotors of the UAV based on [the initial velocity] and the detected change in position of the control trigger/the trigger [such that for a particular change in position of the control trigger, a first increase or decrease of the power based on a first initial velocity is less than a second increase or decrease of the power based on a second initial velocity, the second initial velocity is greater than the first initial velocity], wherein the increasing or decreasing power to one or more rotors of the UAV is proportional to [the initial velocity] of the UAV and the change in position of the control trigger. (per claim 1) / circuitry configured to cause an increase or decrease of power to one or more rotors of the UAV based on [the initial velocity] and the detected change in position of the trigger [such that for a particular change in position of the control trigger, a first increase or decrease of the power based on a first initial velocity is less than a second increase or decrease of the power based on a second initial velocity, the second initial velocity is greater than the first initial velocity], wherein the increase or decrease of the power to the one or more rotors of the UAV is proportional to [the initial velocity] of the UAV and the change in position of the control trigger. (per claim 17) / trigger an increase or decrease of power to one or more rotors of the UAV based on [the initial velocity] and the detected change in position of the control trigger/the trigger [such that for a particular change in position of the control trigger, a first increase or decrease of the power based on a first initial velocity is less than a second increase or decrease of the power based on a second initial velocity, the second initial velocity is greater than the first initial velocity], wherein the increase or decrease of the power to the one or more rotors of the UAV is proportional to the [initial velocity of the UAV] and the change in position of the control trigger. (per claim 33) (Paragraph [0020, 0052, 0065] and Figure [1], Ohlarik discloses that a change in position of the speed trigger controls the UAV to speed up or slow down (accelerate or decelerate) by applying varying power (increasing/decreasing rotational speed) to the propellors to propel the UAV)
Regarding increasing or decreasing power based on the initial velocity, the examiner notes that Ohlarik does not explicitly disclose changing the power applied to the rotors of the UAV based on an initial velocity.
However, Dastoor, in a similar field of endeavor of remote controlled vehicle control, teaches propulsion control of a remote controlled vehicle that depends upon a throttle trigger position and the initial velocity and such that for a particular change in position of the control trigger, a first increase or decrease of the power based on a first initial velocity is less than a second increase or decrease of the power based on a second initial velocity, the second initial velocity is greater than the first initial velocity (Paragraph [0025, 0034, 0102], Dastoor teaches that the remote controlled vehicle is controlled by a throttle map, acceleration map, or any other suitable type of map, that produces an output value of acceleration. The throttle (trigger style) position value is used to determine the output variable (acceleration) based on the selected map. Finally, the control is based on vehicle speed, wherein the output values can be adjusted based on measured vehicle velocity)
Ohlarik and Dastoor are in a similar field of endeavor of remote controlled vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Ohlarik to include the response profiles taught by Dastoor in the interest of allowing a user with less familiarity/skill with a particular vehicle to more easily operate the vehicle (Dastoor, Paragraph [0003-0004, 0022]).
To summarize the examiner’s position, the primary prior art of note (Ohlarik) discloses the claimed invention of the independent instant claims (changing the acceleration/power according to trigger position, to over-summarize, but limitations are more specifically described above) with the exception of a dependence upon an initial velocity of the vehicle for acceleration/power delivery. However, the secondary art of note reads upon this limitation, as Dastoor teaches the following:
The particular type of vehicle is not particularly limited (Paragraph [0028], "However, the vehicle 100 can have any other suitable form factor or be any other suitable vehicle", as a mere example).
The vehicle is controlled based on a throttle map, correlating input variables with output variables, including multi-dimension maps, with a plurality of input and/or output values. The input variables include a throttle value (analogous to the trigger position, as it is an analogous throttle) and the output value may be a vehicle output value, such as power output and/or acceleration. The throttle map linearly correlates the relationship between a throttle input (in addition to the multi-dimensional input as disclosed) and an output variable (power and/or acceleration) (Paragraph [0025]).
The throttle may be a trigger and the input value depends upon a displacement of the trigger (a position) (Paragraph [0034]).
Finally, Dastoor teaches differential control based on vehicle speed, wherein the output values (power and/or acceleration) can be adjusted base on measured vehicle velocity and states "For example, at high speeds, a slight lean or adjustment in load weight [examiner note, an input variable, analogous to the trigger position] can result in a large turn response [examiner note, an output variable, analogous to the power/acceleration], while the same lean at low speeds can result in a small turn response." (Describing a directly proportional relationship). A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that, due to the explicit verbiage "For example…", that analogous rationale may be applied to the other input and output variables of note, as presented in the above examiner notes.
The examiner also notes that Dastoor teaches a rationale to utilize the maps, stating that a user with less familiarity/skill with a particular vehicle may more easily operate it with the map (Dastoor, Paragraph [0003-0004, 0022]).
Thus, the examiner submits that the combination of references continues to read upon the amended claim set, as the amended claim limitations found in the independent claims are merely a restatement in alternative language of the limitation immediately following them that was previously presented. Merely restating the language previously presented in alternative terms does not delineate the claimed invention from the prior art of note.
Regarding claims 6 and 22: Parent claims 1 and 17 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik further discloses further comprising: determining altitude error between an initial altitude and a desired altitude; and determining an amount of power to direct to the throttle to achieve the desired altitude; and an amount of power to direct to trimming the angle of the UAV to achieve a desired position. (per claim 6) / further comprising: circuitry configured to determine an altitude error between an initial altitude and a desired altitude; and circuitry configured to determine an amount of power to direct to the throttle to achieve the desired altitude; and an amount of power to direct to trimming the angle of the UAV to achieve a desired position. (per claim 22) (Paragraph [0043-0044, 0048, 0064], Ohlarik discloses that the state of the UAV (altitude, tilt, etc.) are constantly monitored. Ohlarik discloses that unintended changes in UAV position may occur, such as loss of altitude and tilting (thus causing an error between an actual and desired position), and are registered by sensors. The control system automatically adjusts position of the UAV by sending control signals to the rotors to restore the UAV to the desired position. Thus, an amount of throttle (control of rotors) is used to achieve the desired altitude, and a desired tilt (trim))
Regarding claims 7 and 23: Parent claims 1 and 17 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik further discloses wherein the increasing or decreasing power to one or more rotors of the UAV based on the initial velocity and the detected change in position of the trigger comprises using a virtual gear shifting mechanism. (per claim 7) / wherein the circuitry configured to cause the increase or decrease of the power to one or more rotors of the UAV is configured to cause the increase or decrease of the power to one or more rotors of the UAV according to a virtual gear shifting mechanism. (per claim 23) (The examiner notes that, as discussed in the claim interpretation section, that a “virtual gear” constitutes any computer-based correlation of transmitting an input to an output. Paragraph [0062-0063], Ohlarik discloses that adjustment of a rotational speed of each rotor of the UAV may be adjusted corresponding with an operator input command. The changing of the speed of the rotors to correspond to the relative position of the speed trigger and altitude slider, for instance, is a “virtual gear shifting mechanism” under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification)
Regarding claims 8 and 24: Parent claims 7 and 23 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik further discloses wherein the virtual gear shifting mechanism comprises an infinite virtual gear shifting mechanism. (per claims 8 and 24) (The examiner notes that the term “infinite virtual gear shifting mechanism” is subject to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI); see claim interpretation section for more information. Paragraph [0041, 0046], Ohlarik discloses a variable sweep trigger for speed control, wherein the further the trigger is pressed, the higher the output of the rotors becomes. Thus, the variable function of providing a certain input and receiving a certain output, providing a second input and receiving a second output, etc. constitutes an “infinite virtual gear shifting mechanism” under BRI)
Regarding claims 9 and 25: Parent claims 8 and 24 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik further discloses wherein the infinite virtual gear shifting mechanism is configured to perform shifting from any position of the control trigger and from any current velocity of the UAV. (per claims 9 and 25) (Paragraph [0041, 0046], Ohlarik discloses a variable sweep trigger for speed control, wherein the further the trigger is pressed, the higher the output of the rotors becomes. As the claim recites from “any position” and from “any current velocity”, Ohlarik reads upon the claim language, as any position of the trigger of Ohlarik constitutes “from any position of the control trigger” and any real speed (zero or higher) may occur with the UAV when receiving the input, constituting “from any current velocity of the UAV”)
Regarding claims 10 and 26: Parent claims 7 and 22 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik further discloses wherein the virtual gear shifting mechanism comprises an automatic virtual gear shifting mechanism. (per claims 10 and 26) (The examiner notes that “automatic virtual gear shifting mechanism” is interpreted broadly per the claim interpretation section. Paragraph [0044, 0048], Ohlarik discloses that, for example, adjustments are made to the speeds of the motors automatically to maintain a desired control parameter)
Regarding claims 11 and 27: Ohlarik further discloses wherein the automatic virtual gear shifting mechanism is configured to calculate a new virtual gear to apply to the UAV whenever there is a change in position of the control trigger. (per claims 11 and 27) (Paragraph [0061-0063], Ohlarik discloses that the operator may apply a force from an index finger to change a position of the trigger (change in position of the control trigger), which then causes the flight controller to receive this relative position and cause an output rotational speed of each rotor of the UAV to implement the input (calculate a new “gear”/rotor output, comprising a virtual control element))
Regarding claims 12 and 28: Parent claims 11 and 27 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik further discloses wherein the new virtual gear is calculated, the new virtual gear comprising a velocity range, a throttle range, and an angles range, and wherein calculating the new virtual gear comprises passing a current velocity value through a [linear scale] from the velocity range to the throttle range and the angles range. (per claim 12) / wherein the automatic virtual gear shifting mechanism is configured to calculate the new virtual gear is calculated, the new virtual gear comprising a velocity range, a throttle range, and an angles range, and wherein calculating the new virtual gear comprises passing a current velocity value through a [linear scale] from the velocity range to the throttle range and the angles range. (per claim 28) (Paragraph [0020, 0047, 0052, 0065] and Figure [1], Ohlarik discloses that a change in position of the speed trigger controls the UAV to speed up or slow down (accelerate or decelerate) by applying varying power (increasing/decreasing rotational speed) to the propellors to propel the UAV (throttle range). Further, Ohlarik discloses that the amount of pitch and roll to perform turns is based on the speed at which the UAV travels and the trigger position (angles ranges))
Ohlarik is silent regarding a specifically linear relationship.
However, Dastoor, in a similar field of endeavor of remote controlled vehicle control, teaches a linear scale relationship between throttle values with output values (Paragraph [0025], Dastoor teaches the use of a linear relationship between throttle values and output values)
Ohlarik and Dastoor are in a similar field of endeavor of remote controlled vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Ohlarik to specifically state that a linear relationship is present among the input and output variables as taught by Dastoor, as this is one of a finite number of known relationships that may be simply substituted, as taught by Dastoor (Paragraph [0025]). One would be motivated to make this combination as a matter of preference or ease of calculation.
Regarding claims 13 and 29: Parent claims 12 and 28 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik further discloses wherein the new virtual gear's angles range comprises a roll angle range and a pitch angle range. (per claims 13 and 29) (Paragraph [0046-0047], Ohlarik discloses that the amount of angle that the UAV may experience is dependent upon the velocity of the UAV and amount of trigger depression. Pitch angle and roll angle are disclosed to be affected)
Claims 2-3 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor in further view of Parazynski et al. (US 2020/0387238 A1; hereinafter Parazynski).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 18-19: Parent claims 1 and 17 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik does not explicitly disclose the type of sensor used to detect the change in position of the trigger.
However, Parazynski, in a similar field of endeavor of drone control, teaches wherein the detecting a change in position of the control trigger is carried out by a potentiometer that is configured to translate a control trigger pressure value into an acceleration value. (per claim 2) / wherein the circuitry configured to detect the change in the position of the control trigger comprises at least one potentiometer that is configured to translate a control trigger pressure value into an acceleration value. (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0056, 0064], Parazynski teaches a trigger style control member. Further, Parazynski teaches that hall effect sensors and potentiometers may be used to measure the displacement of the control member (trigger))
Ohlarik and Parazynski are in a similar field of endeavor of drone control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Ohlarik to include an explicit teaching of the type of sensor used to monitor trigger displacement, as taught by Parazynski, in order to merely provide supplemental structural detail regarding the physical components of the user interface of Ohlarik. There are a finite number of well-known alternatives to measuring variable button/joystick/trigger position, as taught by Parazynski (Paragraph [0064]). Simply specifying that one well-known sensor is used in this capacity was known in the art at the time of filing; the motivation to utilize a potentiometer or hall effect sensor is simply due to availability or user preference, as they may be considered alternatives.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Parazynski also lists hall effect sensors (Paragraph [0064]), but further, the examiner conveyed to applicant’s representation that hall effect sensors and potentiometers are mere obvious variants of one another, receiving verbal agreement from the applicant in the telephonic interview discussing restriction dated 4/18/2025. Thus, claims 3 and 19 are mere obvious variants of claims 2 and 18.
Claims 4-5 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor in further view of Yu (US 2021/0191426 A1; hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claims 4 and 20: Parent claims 1 and 17 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik does not explicitly disclose utilizing PID for controlling power delivered to the rotors of the UAV.
However, Yu, in a similar field of endeavor of drone control, teaches wherein the increasing or decreasing power to one or more rotors of the UAV is performed using proportional, integral, and derivative controls. (per claim 4) / wherein the circuitry configured to cause the increase or decrease of the power to one or more rotors of the UAV is configured to use proportional, integral, and derivative controls. (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0128, 0130, 0132], Yu teaches the use of PID controllers for altering flight characteristics of the UAV such as for changes in attitude, changes in angular velocity, and/or changes in angular acceleration, for instance)
Ohlarik and Yu are in a similar field of endeavor of drone control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Ohlarik to include PID controls as taught by Yu, as PID controls are well known in the art as a form of error compensation and/or feedforward component. The rationale to combine is to provide a feedback control scheme that provides stable and controlled flight (Yu, Paragraph [0004-0005]).
Regarding claims 5 and 21: Parent claims 4 and 20 are unpatentable over Ohlarik in view of Dastoor. Ohlarik does not explicitly disclose utilizing PID for controlling power delivered to the rotors of the UAV.
However, Yu, in a similar field of endeavor of drone control, teaches wherein the increasing or decreasing power to one or more rotors of the UAV is operable to at least one of a) minimize a convergence time to a target point; or b) minimize overshoot distance past a desired altitude or other target point. (per claim 5) / wherein the circuitry configured to case the increase or decrease of the power to one or more rotors of the UAV is operable to at least one of a) minimize a convergence time to a target point; or b) minimize overshoot distance past a desired altitude or other target point. (per claim 21) (The examiner notes that through recitation of “or” that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0128, 0130, 0132, 0187, 0203, 0211], Yu teaches that the controller produces a faster response (minimizes time) and reduces the overshoot compared to a conventional controller, wherein the controller performs positional manipulation as discussed in parent claim)
Ohlarik and Yu are in a similar field of endeavor of drone control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Ohlarik to include PID controls as taught by Yu, as PID controls are well known in the art as a form of error compensation and/or feedforward component. The rationale to combine is to provide a feedback control scheme that provides stable and controlled flight (Yu, Paragraph [0004-0005]).
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2023/0305556 A1
Method of Controlling Movable Platform, Motion Sensing Remote Controller and Storage Medium
Duan et al.
Filed: 05 Jun 2023
Pub: 28 Sep 2023
Priority: 25 Dec 2020
Discusses a UAV controlled by a trigger style remote.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights