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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the previously applied art fails to teach the amended claim language, particularly that “the mount signal is determined based on continuity of a circuit completed by the at least attachment mechanism”. However, Zhang teaches this limitation, as discussed in further detail below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim should read “a circuit completed by the at least one attachment mechanism”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20200343599, cited in applicant IDS) in view of Meng et al. (CN 109239609, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 1.
With respect to Fig. 1 below, Zhang teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
416
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: The attachment monitoring circuit of Zhang (originally Zhang Fig. 3)
detecting, by a battery detachably mounted on an unmanned aerial vehicle via at least one attachment mechanism and communicatively connected to a flight control system of the unmanned aerial vehicle, before the unmanned aerial vehicle takes off, whether the at least one attachment mechanism is in place
(Zhang – [0104]) “Before the UAV 100 takes off or during flight, the battery safety alert system 110 can always send safety prompt message when the battery 101 is loose.”
wherein detecting comprises obtaining a mount signal, wherein the mount signal is configured to indicate whether the at least one attachment mechanism is in place, wherein the mount signal is determined based on continuity of a circuit completed by the at least attachment mechanism
(Zhang – [0079]) “The two micro switches 111a and 111b are respectively triggered by the two engagement mechanisms 120. Only when the two micro switches 111a and 111b are triggered simultaneously will the circuit link formed by the two micro switches 111a and 111b be turned on, indicating that the two engagement mechanisms 120 are fully engaged simultaneously”
sending, by the battery, a second signal to the flight control system in response to detecting that at least one of the at least one attachment mechanism is not in place, wherein the second signal is configured to instruct the flight control system to prevent takeoff of the unmanned aerial vehicle
(Zhang – [0098]) “if the battery is not fully mounted before a taking off, a function of the UAV 100 can be restricted through a program setting, e.g., not being able to operate the UAV 100 to take off when the battery is not fully mounted.”
Zhang does not explicitly teach sending a signal when the attachment mechanism is in place; however, Meng et al. teaches:
sending, by the battery, a first signal to the flight control system in response to detecting that the at least one attachment mechanism is in place, wherein the first signal is configured to instruct the flight control system to initiate takeoff of the unmanned aerial vehicle
(Meng – [0014]) “The battery presence signal transmits the battery presence signal to the signal isolation circuit.”
[Examiner’s Note: Sending a signal regarding the normal presence of the battery, in conjunction with Zhang’s teaching regarding restricting takeoff, indicates a signal that takeoff would be permissible.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the battery safety alert system of Zhang with the battery presence detection circuit of Meng et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to complement the engagement mechanism of Zhang, which may prone to limit loosening due to vibration during flight (Meng – [0005]).
Claim 2.
The combination of Zhang and Meng et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Zhang further teaches:
detecting, by the battery, during flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle, whether the at least one attachment mechanism is in place
(Zhang – [0104]) “Before the UAV 100 takes off or during flight, the battery safety alert system 110 can always send safety prompt message when the battery 101 is loose.”
sending, by the battery, a fourth signal to the flight control system in response to detecting that at least one of the one attachment mechanism is not in place, wherein the fourth signal is configured to instruct the flight control system to issue a fault prompt, wherein the fault prompt is configured to notify a user of a risk of the battery falling off
(Zhang – [0104]) “If the safety prompt message appears during the flight of the UAV 100, the user can safely land the UAV 100 by a manual operation”
Zhang does not explicitly teach a signal to maintain normal flight; however, Meng et al. teaches:
sending, by the battery, a third signal to the flight control system in response to detecting that the at least one attachment mechanism is in place, wherein the third signal is configured to instruct the flight control system to maintain normal flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle
(Meng – [0014]) “The battery presence signal transmits the battery presence signal to the signal isolation circuit.”
[Examiner’s Note: Sending a signal regarding the normal presence of the battery, in conjunction with Zhang’s teaching regarding a fault prompt, indicates a signal that takeoff would be permissible.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 4.
The combination of Zhang and Meng et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Zhang further teaches:
wherein the flight control system is communicatively connected to a mobile terminal, and the fourth signal is further configured to instruct the flight control system to send the fault prompt to the mobile terminal to notify the user
(Zhang – [0053]) “A prompt message generated by the battery safety alert system can be sent to a controller of the battery, a controller of the powered device, a controller of a remote control device of a powered device, or a processor of a charging device, so that the processors can perform a corresponding controlling operation.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Zhang and Meng et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Zhang further teaches:
storing fault information in response to detecting that at least one of the at least one attachment mechanism is not in place, wherein the fault information comprises identity information of the at least one attachment mechanism that is not in place
(Zhang – [0006]) “The controller is configured to receive the position information, determine whether the engagement mechanism is fully engaged with the matching mechanism based on the position information, and send out alarm information in response to the engagement mechanism not being fully engaged with the matching mechanism.”
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang and Meng et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Raptopoulos et al. (US 20170129603).
Claim 3.
The combination of Zhang and Meng et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Neither Zhang nor Meng et al. explicitly teaches a force landing; however, Raptopoulos et al. teaches:
wherein the fourth signal is further configured to instruct the flight control system to initiate a force landing of the unmanned aerial vehicle
(Raptopoulos – [0249]) “the one or more conditions may include… whether the battery fails… After determining or obtaining the determination that one or more of these conditions are satisfied, UAV FTS 630 can invoke emergency landing system 908 to search for and/or land UAV 130 in a nearby UAV station or location.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the battery safety alert system of Zhang with the forced landing of Raptopoulos et al. One would have been motivated to do this because in an emergency, an operator may not be able to react quickly enough to land as soon as necessary.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang and Meng et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Rich et al. (US 20130069658).
Claim 6.
The combination of Zhang and Meng et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Neither Zhang nor Meng et al. explicitly teaches communication authentication; however, Rich et al. teaches:
determining, prior to detecting whether the at least one attachment mechanism is in place before the unmanned aerial vehicle takes off, that communication authentication between the battery and the flight control system succeeds
(Rich – [0202]) “a method 900 for authenticating a battery, such as battery 130, for use with a mobile communication device or other electronic device.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, augmenting the battery safety alert system of Zhang with the battery authentication method of Rich et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent damage to the drone as a result of an overcharged counterfeit battery (Rich – [0029]).
Claim(s) 7-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Meng et al. in view of Rich et al.
Claim 7.
Zhang teaches:
a battery body
(Zhang – [0052]) “the battery safety alert system can be provided at a battery, e.g., a smart battery”
a signal monitor, connected to the battery body, wherein the signal monitor is configured to obtain a mount signal of at least one attachment mechanism, wherein the at least one attachment mechanism is configured to detachably mount the battery on an unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the mount signal is configured to indicate whether the at least one attachment mechanism is in place
(Zhang – [0006]) “The controller is configured to receive the position information, determine whether the engagement mechanism is fully engaged with the matching mechanism based on the position information, and send out alarm information in response to the engagement mechanism not being fully engaged with the matching mechanism.”
a processor, respectively connected to the signal monitor and the battery body, wherein the processor is configured to be communicatively connected to a flight control system of the unmanned aerial vehicle
(Zhang – Abstract) “A battery safety alert system includes a detection device and a controller communicatively connected to the detection device.”
Zhang does not explicitly teach a memory; however, Rich et al. teaches:
a memory connected to the processor, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the processor
(Rich – [0004]) “so-called ‘smart batteries’, which may have an integrated battery processor or some other processing elements and circuitry in certain implementations, and in some cases storage memory”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 6.
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 8.
The combination of Zhang, Meng et al., and Rich et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 2 below, Meng et al. further teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
356
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: A battery detection circuit according to Meng et al. (originally Meng Fig. 3)
a first resistor, wherein the first resistor and the at least one attachment mechanism form a first series circuit, wherein the first series circuit is disrupted in response to determining that at least one of the at least one attachment mechanism is not in place
(Meng – [0033]) “the voltage signal of battery 1 being in place is filtered by a first capacitor C1 and a first resistor R1 connected in series between the positive and negative electrodes of battery 1.”
wherein a first terminal of the first series circuit is connected to a first terminal of the battery body, a second terminal of the first series circuit is connected to a second terminal of the battery body, a first terminal of the first resistor is connected to the first terminal of the first series circuit and a second terminal of the first resistor is connected to a first port of the processor
(Meng – [0035]) “the base of the triode receives the battery 1 in place high-level signal transmitted by the first signal output port of the photoelectric coupler adjusted by the first bias resistor R2 and the second bias R3, so that the amplifier circuit obtains a suitable working point, and outputs it to the corresponding battery in place signal transmitter”
Claim 9.
The combination of Zhang, Meng et al., and Rich et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Meng et al. further teaches:
a second resistor, wherein a first terminal of the second resistor is connected to the second terminal of the first resistor and a second terminal of the second resistor is connected to the first port of the processor
(Meng – [0035]) “the first loop is composed of a first signal output port of the photocoupler, a first bias resistor R2, and a second bias resistor R3 connected in series in sequence, the second loop is composed of a current limiting resistor R4, a light-emitting diode and an electronic switch connected in series in sequence”
Claim 10.
The combination of Zhang, Meng et al., and Rich et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 2 below, Meng et al. further teaches:
PNG
media_image3.png
482
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Linked battery detection circuits according to Meng et al. (originally Meng Fig. 2)
a plurality of third resistors, equal in number to a plurality of attachment mechanisms, wherein at least one third resistor respectively forms a second series circuit with at least one attachment mechanism, wherein the second series circuit is disrupted in response to determining that at least one of the plurality of attachment mechanisms is not in place
(Meng – [0035]) “the first loop is composed of a first signal output port of the photocoupler, a first bias resistor R2, and a second bias resistor R3 connected in series in sequence, the second loop is composed of a current limiting resistor R4, a light-emitting diode and an electronic switch connected in series in sequence”
[Examiner’s Note: The plurality of circuits here determines whether at least one battery is not attached properly.]
wherein a first terminal of the second series circuit is connected to the first terminal of the battery body, a second terminal of the second series circuit is connected to the second terminal of the battery body, a first terminal of the third resistor is connected to a first terminal of a corresponding second series circuit and a second terminal of the third resistor is connected to a corresponding second port of the processor
(Meng – [0035]) “the first loop is composed of a first signal output port of the photocoupler, a first bias resistor R2, and a second bias resistor R3 connected in series in sequence, the second loop is composed of a current limiting resistor R4, a light-emitting diode and an electronic switch connected in series in sequence”
[Examiner’s Note: As seen in Fig. 2 above, the system of Meng et al. consists of a plurality of circuits of this description.]
Claim 11.
The combination of Zhang, Meng et al., and Rich et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 2 above, Meng et al. further teaches:
a plurality of fourth resistors, equal in number to a plurality of attachment mechanisms, wherein a first terminal of the fourth resistor is connected to a second terminal of a corresponding third resistor and a second terminal of the fourth resistor is connected to a corresponding second port of the processor
(Meng – [0035]) “the first loop is composed of a first signal output port of the photocoupler, a first bias resistor R2, and a second bias resistor R3 connected in series in sequence, the second loop is composed of a current limiting resistor R4, a light-emitting diode and an electronic switch connected in series in sequence”
[Examiner’s Note: As seen in Fig. 2 above, the system of Meng et al. consists of a plurality of circuits of this description.]
Claim 12.
Zhang teaches:
a flight control system
(Zhang – [0055]) “the controller of the UAV can control a power system to forbit taking off”
a battery, wherein the battery is communicatively connected to the flight control system, and the battery is detachably mounted on the unmanned aerial vehicle by at least one attachment mechanism
(Zhang – Abstract) “A battery safety alert system includes a detection device and a controller communicatively connected to the detection device.”
(Zhang – [0006]) “The controller is configured to receive the position information, determine whether the engagement mechanism is fully engaged with the matching mechanism based on the position information, and send out alarm information in response to the engagement mechanism not being fully engaged with the matching mechanism.”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 11.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 19.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 20.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Meng et al., and Rich et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Raptopoulos et al.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669