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 the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Silverman teaches “...in response to the body being in a to-be-rescued attitude in which at least one propeller of the at least two rotors interferes with a landing surface, ....
the determining whether the at least two rotors are capable of conducting rescue comprising determining, for each of the at least two rotors, whether a propeller of the rotor is separated from the landing surface;
and ..., the one or more second rotors being associated with the at least one propeller that interferes with the landing surface”. (see col. 1, line 30-30 and col. 2, lines 1-20 where the image of the drone can be determined and that the drone can interfere with the propellors of the manned aircraft engine and be sucked into the engine and destroy both the manned aircraft engine and the drone)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SILVERMAN with the disclosure of ARLTON with a reasonable expectation of success since SILVERMAN teaches that a camera and video sensor that can capture the drone position and the position of the manned vehicle. They can then determine that the propeller of the manned vehicle engine is too close to the drone and there is a risk that the propellers of the UAV can be sucked into the propellers of the engine. In response to this risk, the UAV can be controlled to avoid this area and instead be directed to a second location and a safe landing location. See col. 1, line 10 to col. 3, line 30 and the claims 1-17 of SILVERMAN.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140091172A1 to Arlton and in view of Korean Patent Application Pub. No.: KR102740958B1 that was filed in 2016 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0031438 A1 to Moses et al. that was filed in 2018 and in view of International Patent Application Pub. No.: WO 2022/037042 A1 to Wang filed on 3-15-2021 and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US10198956B2 to Silverman.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, 19 and 20, Arlton discloses “ 1. An aerial vehicle comprising:
a body; (See FIG.25a where the first can have two blades and the second can have two and a fixed wing)”.
at least two rotors rotatably disposed at the body,
each of the at least two rotors being configured to provide
a first thrust in a first direction when rotating in a forward direction and provide
a second thrust in a second direction opposite to the first direction when rotating in a reverse direction; (see Fig 1 where the first rotor has a first motor and a first pitch controller and the second rotor has a second pitch controller and the two counter rotate in the abstract).
The Arlton reference is silent but WANG et al. teaches “...and at least one processor configured to: in response to the body being in a to-be-rescued attitude,”. (see rotors 14 and drive motor 140;”. when the robot is rescuing multiple drowning people, it needs to detect its own buoyancy. When the buoyancy is insufficient, the controller sends a support signal to the control system again to deal with the rescue of multiple drowning people. In addition to the buoyancy detection device, the robot body 1 There is also a device for increasing the buoyancy, to increase the number of rescuers and prevent the robot from being dragged into the water by the drowning person and cause the machine to enter the water. The floating airbag device 3; the floating airbag device 3 includes an inflation trigger device 4 arranged above the balance wing 11, and the inflation is triggered when the top of the balance wing 11 is submerged by water.)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of WANG with a reasonable expectation of success since WANG teaches that a robot can detect a person drowning and then descend and turn on a device to throw to the person to save the individual. See claims 1-10 and paragraph 1-20 and blocks s1-s4.
Moses teaches “determine whether the at least two rotors are capable of conducting rescue and in response to determining that only one or more first rotors of the at least two rotors being capable of conducting rescue, (see paragraph 51 and 35-37 where the drome can ascend to a higher altitude to see a water craft in the distance and send that direction to establish and a camera view and then dispatch a second drone):.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of MOSES with a reasonable expectation of success since MOSES teaches that a drone can detect a swimmer that is in distress and then land on the water and take off to save the individual and then return to take a second individual if needed by a single basket that can be manually or automatically controlled. See also paragraph 60 where a second drone is not capable of a rescue and can provide weaker motors for locating the people only.
The 958 publication teaches “...control to perform a rescue operation by controlling the one or more first rotors to provide the second thrust and controlling one or more second rotors of the at least two rotors other than the one or more first rotors to stop rotating”. (see abstract where the one of the coaxial rotors can fail and then the failed rotor is stopped and the throttle of the other coaxial rotor can increase by a throttle command; and see detailed description where the pitch also can be increased in response to a failure; Another object of the present invention is to provide inherent single arm failure redundancy to handle the lift, yaw, pitch and roll requirements of a multi-propeller UAV.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of the ‘958 Korean publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the 958 teaches that a drone can include a failure of one coaxial rotor. The other rotor can increase a pitch of the blades and then increase the rate to provide more lift to prevent a crash.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Silverman teaches “...in response to the body being in a to-be-rescued attitude in which at least one propeller of the at least two rotors interferes with a landing surface, ....
the determining whether the at least two rotors are capable of conducting rescue comprising determining, for each of the at least two rotors, whether a propeller of the rotor is separated from the landing surface;
and ..., the one or more second rotors being associated with the at least one propeller that interferes with the landing surface”. (see col. 1, line 30-30 and col. 2, lines 1-20 where the image of the drone can be determined and that the drone can interfere with the propellors of the manned aircraft engine and be sucked into the engine and destroy both the manned aircraft engine and the drone)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SILVERMAN with the disclosure of ARLTON with a reasonable expectation of success since SILVERMAN teaches that a camera and video sensor that can capture the drone position and the position of the manned vehicle. They can then determine that the propeller of the manned vehicle engine is too close to the drone and there is a risk that the propellers of the UAV can be sucked into the propellers of the engine. In response to this risk, the UAV can be controlled to avoid this area and instead be directed to a second location and a safe landing location. See col. 1, line 10 to col. 3, line 30 and the claims 1-17 of SILVERMAN.
Arlton is silent but the 958 publication teaches “...2. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to send a control instruction to control the one or more first rotors to provide the second thrust, to change the body from the to-be-rescued attitude to a normal take-off attitude. (see abstract where the one of the coaxial rotors can fail and then the failed rotor is stopped and the throttle of the other coaxial rotor can increase by a throttle command; and see detailed description where the pitch also can be increased in response to a failure; Another object of the present invention is to provide inherent single arm failure redundancy to handle the lift, yaw, pitch and roll requirements of a multi-propeller UAV.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of the ‘958 Korean publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the 958 teaches that a drone can include a failure of one coaxial rotor. The other rotor can increase a pitch of the blades and then increase the rate to provide more lift to prevent a crash.
The 958 publication teaches “..3. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, in response to both the one or more first rotors and the one or more second rotors being capable of conducting rescue:
control the one or more first rotors to each provide the second trust; and control the one or more second rotors to each provide the first thrust. (see abstract where the one of the coaxial rotors can fail and then the failed rotor is stopped and the throttle of the other coaxial rotor can increase by a throttle command; and see detailed description where the pitch also can be increased in response to a failure; Another object of the present invention is to provide inherent single arm failure redundancy to handle the lift, yaw, pitch and roll requirements of a multi-propeller UAV.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of the ‘958 Korean publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the 958 teaches that a drone can include a failure of one coaxial rotor. The other rotor can increase a pitch of the blades and then increase the rate to provide more lift to prevent a crash.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140091172A1 to Arlton and in view of Korean Patent Application Pub. No.: KR102740958B1 that was filed in 2016 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0031438 A1 to Moses et al. that was filed in 2018 and in view of International Patent Application Pub. No.: WO 2022/037042 A1 to Wang filed on 3-15-2021 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200031437A1 to Moses that was filed in 2018 and Silverman.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Moses teaches “...4. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
when the body is in the to-be-rescued attitude, an angle between the body along the first direction and a horizontal plane is larger than a preset angle threshold”. (see paragraph 35-37 where the drome can ascend to a higher altitude to see a water craft in the distance and send that direction to establish and a camera view and then dispatch a second drone)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of MOSES with a reasonable expectation of success since MOSES teaches that a drone can detect a swimmer that is in distress and then land on the water and take off to save the individual and then return to take a second individual if needed by a single basket that can be manually or automatically controlled. See also paragraph 60 where a second drone is not capable of a rescue and can provide weaker motors for locating the people only.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140091172A1 to Arlton and in view of Korean Patent Application Pub. No.: KR102740958B1 that was filed in 2016 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0031438 A1 to Moses et al. that was filed in 2018 and in view of International Patent Application Pub. No.: WO 2022/037042 A1 to Wang filed on 3-15-2021 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200031437A1 to Moses that was filed in 2018 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20240425177 A1 to File that was filed and in view of Silverman.
File teaches “...5. The aerial vehicle according to claim 4, wherein:
the preset angle threshold is a first preset angle threshold; and
the at least one processor is further configured to, in response to the angle being larger than a second preset angle threshold, control the at least two rotors to provide the second thrust when, to cause the body to take off in the to-be-rescued attitude”. (see paragraph 157-161 FIG. 10a and 10b where the motors can be titled by an angle to provide a lift during a gust and provide a stable operation)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of FILE with a reasonable expectation of success since FUKE teaches that a drone can have three propellors for high power operation and if a failure occurs the other two can provide power to the driver. In a larger wind gust, the propellers can be controlled for a gust alleviation and point the pitch to provide increased lift. See paragraph 54.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140091172A1 to Arlton and in view of Korean Patent Application Pub. No.: KR102740958B1 that was filed in 2016 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0031438 A1 to Moses et al. that was filed in 2018 and in view of International Patent Application Pub. No.: WO 2022/037042 A1 to Wang filed on 3-15-2021 and in view of Silverman.
Moses teaches “...6. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
an inertial measurement unit configured to measure attitude information of the body; and
a photographing device;
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the one or more first rotors based on at least one of the attitude information or an image captured by the photographing device”. (see paragraph 27 where a remote operator can include a device to rescue the individual using the air drone by a camera 22 on the drone)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of MOSES with a reasonable expectation of success since MOSES teaches that a drone can detect a swimmer that is in distress and then land on the water and take off to save the individual and then return to take a second individual if needed by a single basket that can be manually or automatically controlled. See also paragraph 60 where a second drone is not capable of a rescue and can provide weaker motors for locating the people only.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140091172A1 to Arlton and in view of Korean Patent Application Pub. No.: KR102740958B1 that was filed in 2016 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0031438 A1 to Moses et al. that was filed in 2018 and in view of International Patent Application Pub. No.: WO 2022/037042 A1 to Wang filed on 3-15-2021
in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2017/0015417 A1 to Bishop that was filed in 2014 (hereinafter “Bishop”) and Silverman.
Bishop teaches “...7. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a two-way electronic speed controller configured to control forward rotation or reverse rotation of motor rotators connected to the at least two rotors respectively, to drive the at least two rotors respectively to rotate forward or reversely;
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the at least two rotors are able to perform the rescue operation by determining at least one of:
whether propellers of the at least two rotors interfere with each other in a current attitude, or whether the two-way electronic speed controller is able to work normally”. (see element 100 that shows the drone with a large central rotor and multiple smaller rotors surrounding the larger central rotor) (see FIG. 3-4 where the smaller rotors are on the sides as shown as 107, 110 and six smaller rotors) (see paragraph 42 where the interior includes two high powered internal rotor assemblies having propellers for vertical take off and landing) (see paragraph 43; where the engine provides power to an alternator 101 and that supplies power to the motors)”. (see claim 1-2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of BISHOP with a reasonable expectation of success since BISHOP teaches that a drone can have a counter rotating propellers that include lift, stability and directional control with counter rotating ducted fans.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140091172A1 to Arlton and in view of Korean Patent Application Pub. No.: KR102740958B1 that was filed in 2016 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0031438 A1 to Moses et al. that was filed in 2018 and in view of International Patent Application Pub. No.: WO 2022/037042 A1 to Wang filed on 3-15-2021 and in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP 3 984 851 A1 to Oshina et al. that was filed in 6-14-19 and Silverman.
Oshima teaches “… 8. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
the forward direction and the reverse direction of one rotor of the at least two rotors are determined based on a propeller angle of the one rotor. (see FIG. 47 where the first vane portion 371b can be controlled when the vane portions rotates to change the pitch of the wings 371, 372).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the teachings of the Oshina publication since the Oshina publication teaches that a drone can include one or more vanes that are steerable and pivotable to rotate to steer the drone as desired by the controller. See FIG. 33-34.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140091172A1 to Arlton and in view of Korean Patent Application Pub. No.: KR102740958B1 that was filed in 2016 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0031438 A1 to Moses et al. that was filed in 2018 and in view of International Patent Application Pub. No.: WO 2022/037042 A1 to Wang filed on 3-15-2021 and in view of NPL, Bevacqua, “Mixed-Initiative Planning and Execution for Multiple Drones in Search and Rescue Missions”,
Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, DIETI, Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II via Claudio 21, 80125, Napoli, Italy, ICAPS. 2015 (http://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/2f37/c1b58ed2819ad88e8bb774bc9916c3172106.pdf) (hereinafter “Bevacqua”) and in view of Silverman.
Bevacqua discloses “... 9. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
the aerial vehicle has a rescue mode, and the rescue mode includes at least one of a manual rescue mode, an automatic rescue mode, or an automatic rescue-and-return mode. (see page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment) (see page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). (See FIG. 4, where the data is provided from each drone to the supervisory control modules on a server at page 318). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
Bevacqua discloses “... 10. The aerial vehicle according to claim 9,
wherein each of the at least two of the rotors has a rotor identification;
the aerial vehicle further comprising:
a memory storing a rescue strategy, such that the aerial vehicle performs the rescue operation based on the rescue strategy in the automatic rescue mode or the automatic rescue-and-return mode; wherein the rescue strategy includes at least one of: a first mapping relationship between angles and rotor identifications; a second mapping relationship between the angles, the rotor identifications, and control amount moduli; or a third mapping relationship between the angles, the rotor identifications, attribute information, and the control amount moduli, the attribute information including at least one of voltage information of a power supply, weight information of the aerial vehicle, air pressure information of an environment, and a number of times the rescue control instruction is triggered”. (see page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment) (see page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). (See FIG. 4, where the data is provided from each drone to the supervisory control modules on a server at page 318). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of Bevacqua before the effective filing date of the present disclosure since BEVACQUA teaches that a reconfigurable array of swarming drones may be provided that has a search algorithm between the drones. This can be used for a search and rescue mission. Each of the drones can search a new area to find a lost person and rescue the person according to an algorithm.
Bevacqua discloses “...11. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the aerial vehicle is in the to-be-rescued attitude:
a projection of a direction of a resultant force of thrusts provided by the one or more first rotors when rotating in the forward direction to a vertical line passing through a center of gravity of the aerial vehicle points to a center of the earth; and/or
propellers of the one or more rotors do not interfere with a landing surface in a current attitude. (see page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment) (see page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). (See FIG. 4, where the data is provided from each drone to the supervisory control modules on a server at page 318). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of Bevacqua before the effective filing date of the present disclosure since BEVACQUA teaches that a reconfigurable array of swarming drones may be provided that has a search algorithm between the drones. This can be used for a search and rescue mission. Each of the drones can search a new area to find a lost person and rescue the person according to an algorithm.
Bishop teaches “...12. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the aerial vehicle is able to perform the rescue operation:
propellers of one or more of the at least two rotors are able to rotate in the forward direction or in the reverse direction;”. (see element 100 that shows the drone with a large central rotor and multiple smaller rotors surrounding the larger central rotor) (see FIG. 3-4 where the smaller rotors are on the sides as shown as 107, 110 and six smaller rotors) (see paragraph 42 where the interior includes two high powered internal rotor assemblies having propellers for vertical take off and landing) (see paragraph 43; where the engine provides power to an alternator 101 and that supplies power to the motors)”. (see claim 1-2)
See motivation statement above.
Bevacqua teaches “...13. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the aerial vehicle is in a normal take-off attitude:
a projection of a direction of a resultant force of thrusts provided by the at least two rotors when rotating in the forward direction on a vertical line passing through a center of gravity of the aerial vehicle is opposite to a direction pointing to a center of the earth; and/or
propellers of the at least two rotors are separated from a landing surface in the current attitude”. (see page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment) (see page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). (See FIG. 4, where the data is provided from each drone to the supervisory control modules on a server at page 318). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of Bevacqua before the effective filing date of the present disclosure since BEVACQUA teaches that a reconfigurable array of swarming drones may be provided that has a search algorithm between the drones. This can be used for a search and rescue mission. Each of the drones can search a new area to find a lost person and rescue the person according to an algorithm.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140091172A1 to Arlton and in view of Korean Patent Application Pub. No.: KR102740958B1 that was filed in 2016 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0031438 A1 to Moses et al. that was filed in 2018 and in view of International Patent Application Pub. No.: WO 2022/037042 A1 to Wang filed on 3-15-2021 and in view of NPL, Bevacqua, “Mixed-Initiative Planning and Execution for Multiple Drones in Search and Rescue Missions”,
Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, DIETI, Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II via Claudio 21, 80125, Napoli, Italy, ICAPS. 2015 (http://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/2f37/c1b58ed2819ad88e8bb774bc9916c3172106.pdf) (hereinafter “Bevacqua”) and in view of Silverman.
Bevacqua teaches “...14. The aerial vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a communication interface configured to communicate with a control terminal and receive a rescue control instruction transmitted through a communication interface of the control terminal, the rescue control instruction controlling the aerial vehicle to perform the rescue operation. (see page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment) (see page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). (See FIG. 4, where the data is provided from each drone to the supervisory control modules on a server at page 318). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of Bevacqua before the effective filing date of the present disclosure since BEVACQUA teaches that a reconfigurable array of swarming drones may be provided that has a search algorithm between the drones. This can be used for a search and rescue mission. Each of the drones can search a new area to find a lost person and rescue the person according to an algorithm.
Bevacqua teaches “..15. The aerial vehicle according to claim 14, wherein a rescue mode of the aerial vehicle includes at least one of:
a manual rescue mode in which the rescue control instruction includes a control amount modulus, an instruction direction, and a motor rotation instruction input from the control terminal; or an automatic rescue mode in which the rescue control instruction includes a motor rotation instruction. (see page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment) (see page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). (See FIG. 4, where the data is provided from each drone to the supervisory control modules on a server at page 318). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of Bevacqua before the effective filing date of the present disclosure since BEVACQUA teaches that a reconfigurable array of swarming drones may be provided that has a search algorithm between the drones. This can be used for a search and rescue mission. Each of the drones can search a new area to find a lost person and rescue the person according to an algorithm.
Bevacqua teaches “..16. The aerial vehicle according to claim 15, wherein: the one or more first rotors are configured to, in the manual rescue mode, provide the second thrust in response to the control amount modulus, the instruction direction, and the motor rotation instruction. (see page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment) (see page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). (See FIG. 4, where the data is provided from each drone to the supervisory control modules on a server at page 318). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of Bevacqua before the effective filing date of the present disclosure since BEVACQUA teaches that a reconfigurable array of swarming drones may be provided that has a search algorithm between the drones. This can be used for a search and rescue mission. Each of the drones can search a new area to find a lost person and rescue the person according to an algorithm.
Bevacqua teaches “.17. The aerial vehicle according to claim 15, wherein: the aerial vehicle is configured to, in the manual rescue mode, send guidance prompt information to the communication interface of the control terminal through the communication interface of the aerial vehicle, to enable a display screen of the control terminal to display the guidance prompt information for guiding a user to perform the rescue operation. (see page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment) (see page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). (See FIG. 4, where the data is provided from each drone to the supervisory control modules on a server at page 318). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of Bevacqua before the effective filing date of the present disclosure since BEVACQUA teaches that a reconfigurable array of swarming drones may be provided that has a search algorithm between the drones. This can be used for a search and rescue mission. Each of the drones can search a new area to find a lost person and rescue the person according to an algorithm.
PNG
media_image3.png
724
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bevacqua discloses “...18. The aerial vehicle according to claim 17, wherein: the guidance prompt information includes at least one of a schematic image of a stick operation or a parameter value of the stick operation, the schematic image of the stick operation being generated based on the parameter value of the stick operation, and the parameter value of the stick operation being determined based at least on the attitude information of the body. . (see page 4-5 where the robots include a single robot supervisor and then a multi-robot supervisor and a mixed initiate control server and then a multimodal HIRA with gesture commands and the server routes the information to all of the drones) (See page 4-5 where the search of the robots involves a cost and a latency parameter and for plan and trajectory level planning for all drones) (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the disclosure of ARLTON with the teachings of Bevacqua before the effective filing date of the present disclosure since BEVACQUA teaches that a reconfigurable array of swarming drones may be provided that has a search algorithm between the drones. This can be used for a search and rescue mission. Each of the drones can search a new area to find a lost person and rescue the person according to an algorithm.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20180046200A1 to Jiang and in view of Silverman.
In regard to claim 1, 19 and 20, Jiang discloses “ 1. An aerial vehicle comprising:
a body; (See paragraph 1-11)”.
at least two rotors rotatably disposed at the body,
each of the at least two rotors being configured to provide
a first thrust in a first direction when rotating in a forward direction and provide (see paragraph 1-22)
a second thrust in a second direction opposite to the first direction when rotating in a reverse direction; (see paragraph 1-5).
PNG
media_image4.png
770
724
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“...and at least one processor configured to: in response to the body being in a to-be-rescued attitude,”. (see paragraph 1-*19)
“determine whether the at least two rotors are capable of conducting rescue and in response to determining that only one or more first rotors of the at least two rotors being capable of conducting rescue, (see paragraph 1-19)
PNG
media_image5.png
802
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“...control to perform a rescue operation by controlling the one or more first rotors to provide the second thrust and controlling one or more second rotors of the at least two rotors other than the one or more first rotors to stop rotating”. (see claims 1-6)
Claims 1, 19-20 are amended to recite and Silverman teaches “...in response to the body being in a to-be-rescued attitude in which at least one propeller of the at least two rotors interferes with a landing surface, ....
the determining whether the at least two rotors are capable of conducting rescue comprising determining, for each of the at least two rotors, whether a propeller of the rotor is separated from the landing surface;
and ..., the one or more second rotors being associated with the at least one propeller that interferes with the landing surface”. (see col. 1, line 30-30 and col. 2, lines 1-20 where the image of the drone can be determined and that the drone can interfere with the propellors of the manned aircraft engine and be sucked into the engine and destroy both the manned aircraft engine and the drone)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SILVERMAN with the disclosure of JIANG with a reasonable expectation of success since SILVERMAN teaches that a camera and video sensor that can capture the drone position and the position of the manned vehicle. They can then determine that the propeller of the manned vehicle engine is too close to the drone and there is a risk that the propellers of the UAV can be sucked into the propellers of the engine. In response to this risk, the UAV can be controlled to avoid this area and instead be directed to a second location and a safe landing location. See col. 1, line 10 to col. 3, line 30 and the claims 1-17 of SILVERMAN.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666