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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “110B” in Fig. 1 and “310A”, “320A” “342A”, “338A”, “352A”and “382A” in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12-15, 17 and 19-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 8, recites “a target destination” but should recite – the target destination –
Claim 13, line 5, recites “a height” but should recite – the height –
Claim 13, lines 5-6, recites “a target destination” but should recite – the target destination –
Claim 14, line 2, recites “a target destination” but should recite – the target destination –
Claim 15, lines 1-2, recites “a descent arrest device trigger signal height” but should recite – the descent arrest device trigger signal height –
Claim 17, line 5, recites “communicate a second descent arrest device trigger signal” but should recite – communicate the second descent arrest device trigger signal –
Claim 19, line 2, recites “a descent arrest device” but should recite – the descent arrest device –
Claim 20, line 2, recites “a descent arrest device” but should recite – the descent arrest device –
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: “descent state detection system configured to…” in claim(s) 1-3 and 18 and “descent arrest device configured to…” in claim(s) 1 and 4.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/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.
Claim 17, lines 3-9, recites “determine a second height of the aerial payload vehicle above the target destination; determine a second descent arrest device trigger signal height above the target destination; communicate a second descent arrest device trigger signal when the aerial payload vehicle approaches the second descent arrest device trigger signal height; and deploy the descent arrest device based on receiving the second descent arrest device trigger signal configured to decelerate the aerial payload vehicle before a payload from the aerial payload vehicle is delivered to the target destination”. Claim It is unclear to the Examiner why a second height, a second descent arrest device trigger signal height, and etc. is being performed again. In other words, this is performed in claim 12, and is now performed again in claim 17. It is unclear if this is due to a fault, such as in claim 16, and is re-determining the height and a descent arrest device trigger signal height, or if this is just being performed a second time for delivery of the payload or a separate different payload. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is being re-determined due to a fault in the state and errors are being corrected by the aerial payload vehicle.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ifill et al. (US 20200286028 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ifill teaches an aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system comprising: an aerial payload vehicle configured to descend along a predetermined flightpath toward a target destination (abstract and ¶[0035] “calculates a preferred travel trajectory”); a descent state detection system configured to receive sensor output information from a plurality of sensors (¶[0041]-[0042] “sensors”), to compute a sensed distance to the target destination based on sensor output information from at least two sensors of the plurality of sensors (¶[0016] “flight controller determines position of the DASH package system using GPS signals and other sensors to determine location, orientation and velocity relative to the designated ground location”), and to generate a descent arrest device trigger signal based on a sensed altitude (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” and claim 17 “generate a trigger”); and a descent arrest device configured to receive the descent arrest device trigger signal from the descent state detection system and to decelerate the aerial payload vehicle before a payload from the aerial payload vehicle is delivered to the target destination (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” “perform deployment of a drogue chute”).
Regarding claim 2, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the descent state detection system is configured on the aerial payload vehicle (¶[0041]-[0042] “flight control computer (FCC) consisting of components necessary to provide location, guidance and control of surfaces” “suite of sensors (50) such as GPS (52), Magnetometer (54), 3-axis Accelerometers (56), barometer (58) and Video Cameras (60) gather information sufficient to provide telemetry and information to determine the location, orientation, heading and flight conditions of the DASH package”).
Regarding claim 3, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the descent state detection system is configured proximate the target destination (¶[0028] “ground sensors such as anemometers, GPS base stations, or similar may be used to update the flight controller on conditions in the vicinity of the landing site”).
Regarding claim 4, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the descent arrest device is configured on the aerial payload vehicle (see ¶[0040] “drogue chute”).
Regarding claim 5, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 4, wherein the descent arrest device includes at least one of: a parachute; an autorotating blade assembly; and one of an inflatable or frangible impact absorption device (see abstract “DASH package may contain a net, airbag, parachute or similar device”).
Regarding claim 6, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the descent arrest device is configured proximate the target destination (¶[0028] “landing site may contain a net, foam pit, airbag or similar device”).
Regarding claim 7, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 6, wherein the descent arrest device includes at least one of a net, webbing or harness configured to catch the aerial payload vehicle proximate the target destination (¶[0028] “landing site may contain a net, foam pit, airbag or similar device”).
Regarding claim 8, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the descent arrest device trigger signal is generated from the descent state detection system disposed on the aerial payload vehicle configured to activate the descent arrest device on the aerial payload vehicle (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger”, claim 17 “a parachute attached to the device and configured to be deployed by the trigger generated by the flight controller”).
Regarding claim 12, Ifill teaches a method of activating a descent arrest device associated with an aerial payload vehicle which is configured to descend along a predetermined flightpath toward a target destination (see abstract), the method comprising: providing a processor that executes processor instructions stored in a memory (see ¶[0034] “flight controller” “memory”), wherein the processor instructions being executed are configured to: determine a flight state of an aerial payload vehicle based on processing an output of a plurality of sensors (¶[0016] “flight controller determines position of the DASH package system using GPS signals and other sensors to determine location, orientation and velocity relative to the designated ground location”); determine a height of the aerial payload vehicle above a target destination when the aerial payload vehicle is determined to be in a steady state along the predetermined flightpath (¶[0016] “flight controller determines position of the DASH package system using GPS signals and other sensors to determine location, orientation and velocity relative to the designated ground location”; ¶[0018] “flight controller continuously monitors the flight path of the DASH package”); determine a descent arrest device trigger signal height above the target destination (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” and claim 17 “generate a trigger”); and communicate a descent arrest device trigger signal when the aerial payload vehicle approaches the descent arrest device trigger signal height (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” and claim 17 “generate a trigger”; claim 17 “a parachute attached to the device and configured to be deployed by the trigger generated by the flight controller”); and deploy a descent arrest device based on receiving the descent arrest device trigger signal configured to decelerate the aerial payload vehicle before a payload from the aerial payload vehicle is delivered to the target destination (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” “perform deployment of a drogue chute”).
Regarding claim 13, Ifill teaches the method of activating the descent arrest device of claim 12, wherein the flight state is determined to be one from a group of: an idle state; a transient state; a steady state configured to determine a height of the aerial payload vehicle above a target destination; a descent arrest activation state; and a landing state (¶[0040] “landing configuration”).
Regarding claim 16, Ifill teaches the method of activating descent arrest device of claim 13, wherein the processor instructions are further configured to determine a fault in at least one flight state from a group of: the idle state; the transient state; the steady state; the descent arrest activation state; and the landing state (¶[0038] “navigation sensors continuously calculate error from the preferred trajectory”, i.e., errors in a steady state determined for flightpath correction).
Regarding claim 17, Ifill teaches the method of activating descent arrest device of claim 16, wherein the processor instructions are further configured to: determine a second height of the aerial payload vehicle above the target destination (¶[0016] “flight controller determines position of the DASH package system using GPS signals and other sensors to determine location, orientation and velocity relative to the designated ground location”; ¶[0018] “flight controller continuously monitors the flight path of the DASH package”); determine a second descent arrest device trigger signal height above the target destination (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” and claim 17 “generate a trigger”); communicate a second descent arrest device trigger signal when the aerial payload vehicle approaches the second descent arrest device trigger signal height (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” and claim 17 “generate a trigger”; claim 17 “a parachute attached to the device and configured to be deployed by the trigger generated by the flight controller”); and deploy the descent arrest device based on receiving the second descent arrest device trigger signal configured to decelerate the aerial payload vehicle before a payload from the aerial payload vehicle is delivered to the target destination (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” “perform deployment of a drogue chute”).
Regarding claim 18, Ifill teaches an aerial payload vehicle comprising: a compartment for a payload configured to descend along a predetermined flightpath toward a target destination for attempting delivery of the payload to the target destination (¶[0044]-[0045] “vehicle body is designed as a rectangular prism to maintain a high packing efficiency of traditional shipping boxes (140)”; see abstract “preferred travel trajectory”); a descent state detection system configured: to receive sensor output information from a plurality of sensors disposed on the aerial payload vehicle (¶[0041]-[0042] “sensors”); to compute a sensed distance to the target destination based on sensor output information from at least two sensors of the plurality of sensors (¶[0016] “flight controller determines position of the DASH package system using GPS signals and other sensors to determine location, orientation and velocity relative to the designated ground location”); and to generate a descent arrest device trigger signal based on a sensed altitude (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” and claim 17 “generate a trigger”); and a descent arrest device disposed on the aerial payload vehicle (see ¶[0040] “drogue chute”) and configured: to receive the descent arrest device trigger signal from the descent state detection system (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” “perform deployment of a drogue chute”; claim 17 “a parachute attached to the device and configured to be deployed by the trigger generated by the flight controller”); and to decelerate the aerial payload vehicle before the payload is delivered to the target destination (¶[0040] “minimum distance trigger” “perform deployment of a drogue chute”).
Regarding claim 19, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle of claim 18, wherein the aerial payload vehicle further comprises a descent arrest device on the aerial payload vehicle including at least one of: a parachute; an autorotating blade assembly; and one of an inflatable or frangible impact absorption device (see abstract “DASH package may contain a net, airbag, parachute or similar device”).
Regarding claim 20, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle of claim 18, wherein the aerial payload vehicle further comprises a descent arrest device proximate the target destination including at least one of: a net; a webbing; and a harness (¶[0028] “landing site may contain a net, foam pit, airbag or similar device”), wherein the descent arrest device is suspended above a target destination surface and configured to one of catch or decelerate the aerial payload vehicle before contacting the target destination surface (¶[0028] “landing site may contain a net, foam pit, airbag or similar device” “slow the DASH package at deceleration rate, which does not harm the shipped goods or cargo”).
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifill et al. (US 20200286028 A1) in view of Jeong et al. (US 20200033854 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ifill does not explicitly teach the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the descent arrest device trigger signal is generated from the descent state detection system disposed proximate the target destination and transmitted to the aerial payload vehicle configured to activate the descent arrest device on the aerial payload vehicle. However, Jeong discloses a method for controlling an unmanned aerial system and teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the descent arrest device trigger signal is generated from the descent state detection system disposed proximate the target destination and transmitted to the aerial payload vehicle configured to activate the descent arrest device on the aerial payload vehicle (¶[0011] and [0421]-[0422] “drone receives a control message instructing deployment of the parachute from the base station during the flight”, i.e., the control station is the one causing activation of the descent arrest device on the aerial vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for performing precision guided air to ground package delivery of Ifill to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the descent arrest device trigger signal is generated from the descent state detection system disposed proximate the target destination and transmitted to the aerial payload vehicle configured to activate the descent arrest device on the aerial payload vehicle, as taught by Jeong, to provide deploying the parachute when a specific condition is satisfied. (Jeong at ¶[0422])
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifill et al. (US 20200286028 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 20190337637 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ifill teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed in the aerial payload vehicle (¶[0041]-[0042] “flight control computer (FCC) consisting of components necessary to provide location, guidance and control of surfaces” “suite of sensors (50) such as GPS (52), Magnetometer (54), 3-axis Accelerometers (56), barometer (58) and Video Cameras (60) gather information sufficient to provide telemetry and information to determine the location, orientation, heading and flight conditions of the DASH package”) and include at least: a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver (¶[0042] “GPS (52)”); a magnetometer (¶[0042] “Magnetometer (54)”); a multiple-axis accelerometer (¶[0042] “3-axis Accelerometers (56)”); a barometric altimeter (¶[0042] “barometer (58)”).
Ifill does not explicitly teach a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor. However, Lin discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle that includes detecting relative ground height of the UAV and teaches a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor (abstract “relative height of the aerial vehicle”, ¶[0043]-[0044] “radar” “TOF sensor” and ¶[0031] “ultrasonic wave sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for performing precision guided air to ground package delivery of Ifill to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor, as taught by Lin, to provide detecting a vertical height of the UAV relative to an object. (Lin at ¶[0031])
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifill et al. (US 20200286028 A1) in view of Taylor et al. (US 11762398 B1) in further view of Raptopoulos et al. (US 20210276735 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ifill does not explicitly teach the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed proximate the target destination and include at least: a differential Global Navigation Satellite System device; a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor. However, Taylor discloses systems, apparatuses, and methods for autonomously estimating the position and orientation of an aircraft relative to a target site and teaches the aerial payload vehicle descent arrest system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed proximate the target destination and include at least: a differential Global Navigation Satellite System device (Col. 1, line 63 to Col. 2, line 22, “differential GPS (DGPS)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for performing precision guided air to ground package delivery of Ifill to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, a differential Global Navigation Satellite System device, as taught by Taylor, to provide identifying the relative aircraft position to the plurality of beacons using differential GPS. (Taylor at Col. 1, line 63 to Col. 2, line 22)
The combination of Ifill and Taylor does not explicitly teach a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor. However, Raptopoulos discloses a ground station for UAVs and teaches a radio frequency distance sensing radar (¶[0023] “radar”); a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor (¶[0023] “radar”, i.e., radar is a type of TOF sensor); and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor (¶[0023] “acoustic sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for performing precision guided air to ground package delivery of Ifill as modified by Taylor to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor, as taught by Raptopoulos, to provide make a determination regarding the safety of landing UAV at ground station. (Raptopoulos at ¶[0023])
Regarding claim 14, Ifill teaches the method of activating the descent arrest device of claim 12, wherein determining the height of the aerial payload vehicle above a target destination is based on receiving a plurality of signals from at least: a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver (¶[0041]-[0042] “suite of sensors (50) such as GPS (52), Magnetometer (54), 3-axis Accelerometers (56), barometer (58) and Video Cameras (60) gather information sufficient to provide telemetry and information to determine the location, orientation, heading and flight conditions of the DASH package”); a magnetometer (¶[0041]-[0042] “suite of sensors (50) such as GPS (52), Magnetometer (54), 3-axis Accelerometers (56), barometer (58) and Video Cameras (60) gather information sufficient to provide telemetry and information to determine the location, orientation, heading and flight conditions of the DASH package”); a multiple-axis accelerometer (¶[0041]-[0042] “suite of sensors (50) such as GPS (52), Magnetometer (54), 3-axis Accelerometers (56), barometer (58) and Video Cameras (60) gather information sufficient to provide telemetry and information to determine the location, orientation, heading and flight conditions of the DASH package”); a barometric altimeter (¶[0041]-[0042] “suite of sensors (50) such as GPS (52), Magnetometer (54), 3-axis Accelerometers (56), barometer (58) and Video Cameras (60) gather information sufficient to provide telemetry and information to determine the location, orientation, heading and flight conditions of the DASH package”).
Ifill does not explicitly teach a differential Global Navigation Satellite System device; a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor. However, Taylor discloses systems, apparatuses, and methods for autonomously estimating the position and orientation of an aircraft relative to a target site and teaches a differential Global Navigation Satellite System device (Col. 1, line 63 to Col. 2, line 22, “differential GPS (DGPS)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for performing precision guided air to ground package delivery of Ifill to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, a differential Global Navigation Satellite System device, as taught by Taylor, to provide identifying the relative aircraft position to the plurality of beacons using differential GPS. (Taylor at Col. 1, line 63 to Col. 2, line 22)
The combination of Ifill and Taylor does not explicitly teach a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor. However, Raptopoulos discloses a ground station for UAVs and teaches a radio frequency distance sensing radar (¶[0023] “radar”); a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor (¶[0023] “radar”, i.e., radar is a type of TOF sensor); and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor (¶[0023] “acoustic sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for performing precision guided air to ground package delivery of Ifill as modified by Taylor to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, a radio frequency distance sensing radar; a time-of-flight distance sensing sensor; and an audio frequency distance sensing sensor, as taught by Raptopoulos, to provide make a determination regarding the safety of landing UAV at ground station. (Raptopoulos at ¶[0023])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifill et al. (US 20200286028 A1) in view of Sweeny et al. (US 10112721 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Ifill teaches the method of activating descent arrest device of claim 12, wherein determining a descent arrest device trigger signal height above the target destination further comprises: determining one of a fault or a change in characteristics of the aerial payload vehicle (¶[0038] “navigation sensors continuously calculate error from the preferred trajectory”, i.e., fault or change in characteristics).
Ifill does not explicitly teach determining an alternative descent arrest device trigger signal height based on one of the fault or the change in characteristics of the aerial payload vehicle; and communicate an alternative descent arrest device trigger signal when the aerial payload vehicle approaches the alternative descent arrest device trigger signal height. However, Sweeny discloses a parachute deployment system for an UAV and teaches determining an alternative descent arrest device trigger signal height based on one of the fault or the change in characteristics of the aerial payload vehicle (Col. 3, lines 3-32, “parachute may be deployed automatically, e.g., in response to any of a number of errors/failures”, i.e., the Examiner notes that the deployment is based on detection of an error condition in operation of the drone and not simply a predetermined altitude, therefore, it is determining an alternate descent arrest device trigger signal height (e.g., early deployment) due to a fault or failure); and communicate an alternative descent arrest device trigger signal when the aerial payload vehicle approaches the alternative descent arrest device trigger signal height (Col. 3, lines 3-32, “parachute may be deployed automatically, e.g., in response to any of a number of errors/failures” “automatically”; Col. 10, lines 1-9 “deploy the parachute 125 based on safe deployment parameters such as minimum altitude to deploy the parachute”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for performing precision guided air to ground package delivery of Ifill to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, determining an alternative descent arrest device trigger signal height based on one of the fault or the change in characteristics of the aerial payload vehicle; and communicate an alternative descent arrest device trigger signal when the aerial payload vehicle approaches the alternative descent arrest device trigger signal height, as taught by Sweeny, to provide automatically deploying a parachute in response to a error/failure. (Sweeny at Col. 3, lines 3-32)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Truslow et al. (US 20220267004 A1) is pertinent because it relates to payload separation during descent of an aerial vehicle.
Birkedahl et al. (US 20200310467 A1) is pertinent because it relates to systems and methods for landing and takeoff guidance.
Doman et al. (US 10384780 B1) is pertinent because it relates to an apparatus and method for precision ballistic airdrop.
Beckman et al. (US 9896182 B1) is pertinent because it is a package delivery system which can be implemented to forcefully propel a package from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), while the UAV is in motion.
Hanlon (US 9663234 B1) is pertinent because it relates to an aerial package delivery system.
Strong (US 20090026319 A1) is pertinent because it is an aerial delivery system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666