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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 01/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
This action is in response to claims filed on 06/11/2024. Claims 1-20 are considered in this office action. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 4 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 4 line 3 and claim 10 line 3, the term “a setpoint” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the term “setpoint” is referring to the “setpoint” disclosed previously in the claim, or to a different “setpoint.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (WO 2015/180171 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses “An unmanned aerial vehicle (Par. [0005] line 1 teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)), comprising:
a camera (Par. [00112] lines 1-2 teaches sensors 540 including imaging devices such as cameras);
one or more sensors configured to gather data inclusive of data from the camera (Par. [00112] lines 1-2 and 7-8 teaches sensors 540 including imaging devices such as cameras are used to gather information about the environment surrounding the aircraft);
one or more actuators configured to control the aerial vehicle based on the data (Par. [0004] lines 4-11 teaches generating a command signal delivered to at least one actuator of an aircraft operable coupled to one or more propulsion units of the aircraft, where sensors aid in measuring the aircraft dynamics which are fed back to the processor to adjust or confirm the command signal);
controllers (Par. [0010] line 2 teaches one or more processors); and
a memory storing instructions (Par. [00120] lines 4-7 teaches a memory unit that includes instructions executed by the processors) which, when executed by one or more of the controllers, cause one or more of the controllers to:
determine an input of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Par. [0006] lines 1-2 teaches receiving a signal indicative of a target attitude of the aircraft (input) from a remote controller),
generate one or more gain values based on the input, and
change one or more of the gain values based on the input (Par. [0004] teaches aircraft attitude control delivering a command signal to the actuators based on aircraft configuration parameters to a target attitude (input); Par. [00170]-[000171] teaches dynamically adjusting controller gain by a fuzzy logic engine, which determines an error value of the controller attitude feature error).”
Regarding claim 8 and claim 15, the limitations of this system claim and this method claim, respectively, are rejected using cited reference Yu based on the exemplary analysis of the system claim 1 above as the limitations of system claim 8 and method claim 15 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected system claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses “a mixer configured to modify a generated control signal based on limitations of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Par. [0008] lines 2-4 teaches a mixer which combines results of the calculations about the pitch axis, roll axis, and yaw axis, and an aircraft configuration parameter (limitation) to calculate the command signal to be delivered to the at least one actuator; Par. [00133] lines 1-3 teaches the mixer 630 receives information regarding an aircraft configuration parameter 660 (limitation) which is derived from a physical characteristic of the aircraft or aircraft model).”
Regarding claim 9 and claim 16, the limitations of this system claim and this method claim, respectively, are rejected using cited reference Yu based on the exemplary analysis of the system claim 2 above as the limitations of system claim 9 and method claim 16 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected system claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses “a manual control including a control input provided by a user that passes through a pipeline where the control inputs are converted to outputs (Par. [0006] lines 1-2 teaches receiving a signal indicative of a target attitude of the aircraft (input) from a remote controller; Fig. 6A shows target attitude θ_Tar provided as input by a remote controller (RC) passes through a pipeline where it is converted to outputs)
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of this method claim are rejected using cited reference Yu based on the exemplary analysis of the system claim 3 above as the limitations of method claim 17 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected system claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses “a position controller that receives a set point from an automated control or a manual control and then outputs a set point (Par. [0006] lines 1-2 teaches receiving a signal indicative of a target attitude of the aircraft (input) from a remote controller; Par. [00106] teaches an input from a flight control device, which may be a remote control operated by a user, is used to determine a target attitude of the aircraft (outputs a setpoint)).”
Regarding claim 10 and claim 18, the limitations of this system claim and this method claim, respectively, are rejected using cited reference Yu based on the exemplary analysis of the system claim 4 above as the limitations of system claim 10 and method claim 18 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected system claim 4.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 5-7, 11-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (WO 2015/180171 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2016/0068267 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, however Yu does not explicitly teach “an altitude controller configured to modify a velocity set point regarding position of the unmanned aerial vehicle; and a rate controller configured to receive a rate set point as an input and to output a thrust vector.”
From the same field of endeavor of UAV control, Liu teaches “an altitude controller configured to modify a velocity set point regarding position of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Par. [0042] teaches the UAV can be controller to move at a specified velocity and/or acceleration with up to three degrees of freedom in translation and three degrees of freedom in rotation; Par. [0049] lines 3-10 teaches the operating rules can be used to control any suitable aspect of UAV operation such as UAV state (e.g. position, orientation, velocity, acceleration (Par. [0040] lines 8-9)), and may provide ranges, limits, values, and the like for one or more aspects of the state of the UAV including translational velocity and acceleration and angular velocity and acceleration); and a rate controller configured to receive a rate set point as an input and to output a thrust vector (Par. [0123] lines 21-27 teaches the rotation rate of the rotors can be varied independently in order to control the lift and/or thrust produced by each rotor, and thereby adjust the spatial disposition, velocity, and/or acceleration of the movable object (UAV)).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Yu to include the teachings of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success to have the UAV taught by Yu include an altitude controller that modifies a velocity setpoint regarding a position of the UAV as taught by Liu and a rate controller that receives a rate set point input and outputs a thrust vector as taught by Liu.
The motivation for doing so would be to enhance aerial vehicle adaptability, safety, and ease of use (Liu, Par. [0004] lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 11 and claims 19-20, the limitations of this system claim and these method claims, respectively, are rejected using the combination of cited references Yu and Liu based on the exemplary analysis of the system claim 5 above as the limitations of system claim 11 and method claims 19-20 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected system claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, however Yu does not explicitly teach “a rate controller configured to generate control signals for thrust including a thrust vector and a state machine configured to change a state and transmit a signal of one or more drivers to change an operating mode of the unmanned aerial vehicle.”
From the same field of endeavor of UAV control, Liu teaches “a rate controller configured to generate control signals for thrust including a thrust vector (Par. [0123] lines 21-27 teaches the rotation rate of the rotors can be varied independently in order to control the lift and/or thrust produced by each rotor, and thereby adjust the spatial disposition, velocity, and/or acceleration of the movable object (UAV)) and a state machine configured to change a state and transmit a signal of one or more drivers to change an operating mode of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Par. [0005] teaches the processors are configured to select a flight mode, wherein each flight mode is associated with a different set of operating rules for the UAV, and cause the UAV to operate within the environment while conforming to the set of operating rules of the selected flight mode).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Yu to include the teachings of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success to have the UAV taught by Yu include a rate controller configured to generate control signals for thrust including a thrust vector and a state machine configured to change a state and transmit a signal of one or more drivers to change an operating mode of the unmanned aerial vehicle as taught by Liu.
The motivation for doing so would be to enhance aerial vehicle adaptability, safety, and ease of use (Liu, Par. [0004] lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “[a controller] that provides non-time related information to a mixer (Yu, Par. [00133] lines 1-3 teaches the mixer 630 receives information regarding an aircraft configuration parameter 660 (limitation) which is derived from a physical characteristic of the aircraft or aircraft model) and an estimator configured to determine estimates of a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle based upon the data from one or more sensors (Yu, Par. [00112] line 6 teaches a GPS receiver; Par. [00113] lines 16-17 teaches and IMU that provides a signal indicative of the motion of the aerial vehicle, such as position).” However, Yu does not explicitly teach the information is provided by “a state machine.”
From the same field of endeavor of UAV control, Liu teaches non-time related information is provided by “a state machine (Par. [0005] teaches the processors are configured to select a flight mode, wherein each flight mode is associated with a different set of operating rules for the UAV (non-time related information), and cause the UAV to operate within the environment while conforming to the set of operating rules of the selected flight mode).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Yu to include the teachings of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success to have the non-time related information provided to the mixer taught by Yu be provided by a state-machine as taught by Liu.
The motivation for doing so would be to enhance aerial vehicle adaptability, safety, and ease of use (Liu, Par. [0004] lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of this system claim are rejected using the combination of cited references Yu and Liu based on the exemplary analysis of the system claim 7 above as the limitations of system claim 12 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected system claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yu and Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to: generate one or more gain value coefficients to modify proportional, integral, and derivative terms of a proportional, integral, derivative (PID) function of the angle controller (Yu, Par. [00145] lines 1-3 teaches the aircraft control as a feedback control using proportional, integral, and derivative (PID) control schemes, and Par. [00171] lines 3-4 teaches calculating (generating) the controller gain kp as a function of error to be used in the aircraft control error tracking (modifying the PID control)), the PID function used to determine a rate of change of the rate set point signal in response to the angle set point signal (Yu, Par. [00143] lines 7-10, Par. [00145] lines 1-2, and Par. [00146] line 1 teaches a flight planner using a target attitude θ_Tar (angle set point signal) to determine an error in attitude θ_Err, and using the error in attitude θ_Err to control the angle of the aircraft and generate a target angular velocity ω_Tar (rate set point signal), and Par. [00146] line 3 to Par. [00148] line 1 teaches using the target angular velocity ω_Tar to determine an error in angular velocity ω_Err to control, using PID control, the angular velocity of the aircraft and generate a target change in angular velocity
ω
˙
_Tar (rate of change of rate set point)).”
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yu and Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches “wherein the one or more gain values are adaptively generated during operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Yu, Par. [00170] line 5 and [00171] lines 3-5 teaches calculating (generating) the dynamically adjusted (adaptive) controller gain kp to be used in the aircraft attitude control, and Par. [00107] lines 6-7 teaches the aircraft attitude control is performed based on a target attitude).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito et al. (“Output feedback disturbance attenuation with robustness to nonlinear uncertain dynamics via state-dependent scaling,” Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No. .01CH37228), Orlando, FL, USA, 2001, pp. 2772-2777 vol.3. (Year: 2001)) teaches a method of state-dependent scaling design to achieve output feedback disturbance attenuation with global asymptotic stability for nonlinear systems described by interconnection of nonlinear-gain bounded systems for which the control laws can be systematically generated by selecting parameters of the observer and the feedback gain recursively
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights