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 .
Status of the Claims
This second non-final action is in response to applicant's argument on May 29, 2024. Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-25 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the Drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Specifically, Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for claims 9 and 10 have been withdrawn, but remaining Claim Interpretation are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13, 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“rates calculation module” and “attitude calculation module” should be “rates calculation circuitry” and “attitude calculation circuitry” respectively. 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: “a rates calculation module” in claims 11-12, 16-17; “an attitude calculation module” in claims 11-13, 16-17; “a rate calculation module” and “an attitude calculation module” in claim 20.
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 § 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.
Claims 2-3 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu (US 2019384288A1 A1 )
Regarding claim 2, Gu teaches a multirotor aircraft, comprising
a fuselage (Fig. 1A);
a plurality of rotors attached to the fuselage (Fig. 1A); and
a plurality of separately operating flight controller units, each flight controller unit comprising a respective inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs) ;
wherein each of the rotors is separately controlled by a respective flight control unit, based on measurements from the flight control unit's respective IMU(Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs including [0030]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 19, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Gu teaches , wherein each of the plurality of flight controller units receives measurements from the respective IMU of each other flight controller unit( Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs including [0030]-[0041] Each of the IMU may provide pitch, yaw and roll information for its corresponding motor, which again may be passed through a filter, such as a particle filter or a Kalman filter, and control mixer in order to calculate the attitude of the IMU. each ESC unit is “aware” of the attitude of its corresponding motor and can use this information when controlling the propulsion units).
Regarding claim 18, Gu teaches the multirotor aircraft comprises
a plurality of motor assemblies, each configured to generate thrust by movement
of air past the motor assembly along a respective axis of thrust of the motor assembly, wherein each motor assembly comprises a rotor of said plurality of rotors (Fig. 1); and
a wing (Fig. 1-1E);
wherein:
the orientations of the axes of thrust are each fixed, during operation of the aircraft, at a constant respective pitch angle oblique to a pitch orientation of the wing(Fig. 1 -1E and corresponding paragraphs);
the plurality of motor assemblies is operable together to both fully support the aircraft in a hovering mode, and to propel the aircraft forward in a forward flight mode (wing 102 may carry horizontal propulsion units 108); and each motor assembly is positioned where the wing does not intersect the flow of air before entering or after leaving the motor assembly in a direction along the respective axis of thrust, within a radius of the motor assembly (Fig. 1 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claim 20, Gu teaches comprising operating a flight control unit of said plurality of separately operating flight controller units, wherein the operating comprises:
receiving flight measurement data from an IMU of the flight controller unit ([0040]);
performing rates calculation, based on said flight measurement data, by a rate calculation module([0040] Each of the IMU may provide pitch, yaw and roll information for its corresponding motor, which again may be passed through a filter, such as a particle filter or a Kalman filter, and control mixer in order to calculate the attitude of the IMU);
performing attitude calculation based on said flight measurement data, by an attitude calculation module ([0040] Each of the IMU may provide pitch, yaw and roll information for its corresponding motor, which again may be passed through a filter, such as a particle filter or a Kalman filter, and control mixer in order to calculate the attitude of the IMU.);
producing a power command based on said rates and attitude calculations, by a command calculating unit ([0017]mitigate potential dangerous situations caused by failures of a battery of a power system by allow the UAV to automatically reroute power to the propulsion controllers, thereby allowing the UAV to function more efficiently and safely, even where there is a battery failure. In addition, a distributed power system as described above may allow for greater redundancy);
providing the power command to a motor controller(the UAV may automatically reconfigure how power from the remaining batteries is supplied to the propulsion controllers).
Regarding claims 21, Gu teaches comprises outputting flight measurement data to other flight controllers (Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claims 22, Gu teaches wherein the controlling comprises controlling each rotor by its own respective flight control unit (Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claims 23, Gu teaches wherein each rotor is under the control of its own respective flight controller (Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claims 24, Gu teaches wherein failure of a single flight controller affects control of only one rotor (Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claims 25, Gu teaches wherein each rotor is under the control of a flight controller having a respective IMU that measures local variations affecting the respective rotor (Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs).
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gu (US 2019384288A1)
Regarding claim 9, Gu does not explicitly teach teaches a rates calculation circuitry,
wherein each flight controller comprises a rates calculation circuitry for performing rates calculation based on a flight measurement data received from the respective IMU ([0040]) Each of the IMU may provide pitch, yaw and roll information for its corresponding motor, which again may be passed through a filter, such as a particle filter or a Kalman filter, and control mixer in order to calculate the attitude of the IMU. This information may then be provided to the corresponding ESC unit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Gu with a rates calculation circuitry to performing rates calculation.
Regarding claim 10, Gu teaches wherein each flight controller comprises an attitude calculation circuitry for performing attitude calculation based on a flight measurement data received from the respective IMU ([0052] Turning to block 502 , during operation of a UAV, each ESC unit receives signals from the corresponding IMU for that ESC unit identifying attitude information for the corresponding motor of the corresponding propulsion unit).
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
Regarding claim 11, Gu teaches wherein the rates calculation module and the attitude calculation module are configured to give preference to data of the respective IMU, but use comparisons with other available data from IMU of other flight controller units to validate said data of the respective IMU([0054] At block 506 , each ESC unit determines whether a failure has occurred. For instance, the one or more processors of ESC unit 310 - 1 may compare the instructions from any received signals and/or circumstances of a lack of received signals for a period of time to the information in the failure table to determine whether the instructions or circumstances match or correspond to the information in the failure table).
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
Regarding claim 12, Gu teaches wherein the rates calculation module and the attitude calculation module are configured to give preference to data of the respective IMU during more dynamic flight periods ([0054] At block 506 , each ESC unit determines whether a failure has occurred. For instance, the one or more processors of ESC unit 310 - 1 may compare the instructions from any received signals and/or circumstances of a lack of received signals for a period of time to the information in the failure table to determine whether the instructions or circumstances match or correspond to the information in the failure table).
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
Regarding claim 13, Gu teaches wherein the attitude calculation module is configured to ignore input from the respective IMU or input from another IMU, wherein said data is found to give unreasonable differences from a consensus of data from other IMUs ([0056] if a failure is identified, the ESC units automatically attempt to stabilize the UAV by generating commands using the attitude information in order to cause the UAV to reach a predetermined position, orientation or attitude as shown in block 512)
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gu (US 2019384288A1) in view of Ruymgaart (US9828107B1)
Regarding claim 4, while Gu taches signals from the control unit are passed via a bus, such as a CAN bus, to one or more propulsion controllers which together output a control signal to control operation of the UAV's does not explicitly teach but Ruymgaart teaches flight controller units share IMU data, such that each flight controller unit has access to an estimated overall current aircraft flight state (Fig. 1, ESC 1 and ESC2 share all information including IMU data, Master Control 121 and Standby control 122 share all information including IMU data ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Gu, flight controller units share IMU data, as taught by Ruymgaart, as Gu and Ruymgaart are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using flight controller units share IMU data to improve control reliability.
Regarding claim 5, Gu teaches flight controller unit issues commands targeted to bring about a same overall aircraft flight state, based on said estimated overall current aircraft flight state ( [0056] if a failure is identified, the ESC units automatically attempt to stabilize the UAV by generating commands using the attitude information in order to cause the UAV to reach a predetermined position, orientation or attitude as shown in block 512).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gu (US 2019384288A1 A1 ) in view of Wang (US20170045892)
Regarding claim 14, Gu does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches comprising one or both of a central controller and a central IMU (primary controller 104 and IM sensor A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Gu, a central controller and a central IMU, as taught by Wang, as Gu and Wang are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a central controller and a central IMU to provide unified control.
Regarding claim 15, Gu does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the central controller receives input from the plurality of flight controller units, calculates an estimated overall current aircraft flight state and distributes the estimated overall current aircraft flight state back to the plurality of flight controller units (Wang, [0026] The control module 102 may determine the validity of the measurement results received from the sensors, and further determine which measurement result can be used for the flight control of the UAV. the primary controller 104 is used to determine the validity of the measurement results from the first set of sensors, and the secondary controller 106 is used to determine the validity of the measurement results from the second set of sensors. Furthermore, the primary controller 104 and the secondary controller 106 may communicate with each other regarding the validity determination of the measurement results from the two sets of sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Gu, a central controller and a central IMU, as taught by Wang, as Gu and Wang are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a central controller and a central IMU to provide unified control.
Regarding claim 16, Gu does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the central controller receives input from the plurality of flight controller units, calculates an estimated overall current aircraft flight state and distributes the estimated overall current aircraft flight state back to the plurality of flight controller units (Wang, [0026] The control module 102 may determine the validity of the measurement results received from the sensors, and further determine which measurement result can be used for the flight control of the UAV. the primary controller 104 is used to determine the validity of the measurement results from the first set of sensors, and the secondary controller 106 is used to determine the validity of the measurement results from the second set of sensors. Furthermore, the primary controller 104 and the secondary controller 106 may communicate with each other regarding the validity determination of the measurement results from the two sets of sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Gu, a central controller and a central IMU, as taught by Wang, as Gu and Wang are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a central controller and a central IMU to provide unified control.
Regarding claim 17, Gu does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the rates calculation module and the attitude calculation module are configured to select to rely on said central controller depending on the pattern of failure detected ( Wang [0023]the primary controller 104 may have more functionality than the secondary controller 106; [0037] the primary controller 104 may determine the validity of the measurement results from both the first and second sets of sensors, wherein the measurement results from the second set of sensors are transmitted to the primary controller 104 immediately after it is collected by the secondary controller 106 without processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Gu, a central controller and a central IMU, as taught by Wang, as Gu and Wang are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a central controller and a central IMU to provide unified control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 86-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights