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 .
Claim Status
This action is in response to the application filed on 10/06/2023. Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to human activity without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the flight vehicle generates lift in response to wind from the nose direction of its airframe, comprising: controlling the nose direction of the airframe based on wind speed data and wind direction data related to the landing site, and initiating the descent of the airframe. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim limitations could be performed by a human. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim limitations are drawn to human behavior.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210208606 A1 (“Nakazawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakazawa teaches the flight vehicle generates lift in response to wind from the nose direction of its airframe (see at least [0011])
controlling the nose direction of the airframe based on wind speed data and wind direction data related to the landing site, and initiating the descent of the airframe (see at least [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakazawa teaches the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is upwind of the nose direction of the airframe when the wind speed indicated by the wind speed data is in the first wind speed range where no lift is generated (see at least [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakazawa teaches the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is to set the nose direction of the airframe to the downwind side when the wind speed indicated by the wind speed data is in the second wind speed range that generates the lift force (see at least [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Nakazawa teaches the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is to set the nose direction of the airframe to the windward side when the wind speed is in the third wind speed range, which is even stronger than the second wind speed range (see at least [0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Nakazawa teaches the control of the nose direction of the airframe is to change the planned landing site if the wind speed is in the third wind speed range, which is even stronger than the second wind speed range (see at least [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Nakazawa teaches the flight vehicle generates lift in response to wind from the nose direction of the airframe (see at least [0011])
the nose direction of the airframe is controlled based on wind speed data and wind direction data related to the landing site to initiate the descent of the airframe (see at least [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Nakazawa teaches the flight vehicle generates lift in response to wind from the nose direction of the airframe (see at least [0011])
the method of landing the flight vehicle is controlling the nose direction of the airframe based on wind speed data and wind direction data related to the landing site, and initiating the descent of the airframe (see at least [0048]).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210208606 A1 (“Nakazawa”) in view of US 20200234601 A1 (“Ivanov”).
Regarding claim 2, Nakazawa is not explicit on the lift force is generated by the shape of the body of the airframe, however,
Ivanov discloses the lift force is generated by the shape of the body of the airframe (see at least [0056]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Nakazawa with the system disclosed by Ivanov because challenges remain in automatic routing of UAVs (Ivanov, [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakazawa is not explicit on the lift force is generated by the wing parts of the airframe, however,
Ivanov discloses the lift force is generated by the wing parts of the airframe (see at least [0060]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Nakazawa with the system disclosed by Ivanov because challenges remain in automatic routing of UAVs (Ivanov, [0003]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210208606 A1 (“Nakazawa”) in view of US 20250130596 A1 (“Melmoth”).
Regarding claim 4, Nakazawa is not explicit on the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is a yaw rotation on-the-spot, however,
Melmoth discloses the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is a yaw rotation on-the-spot (see at least 0056]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Nakazawa with the system disclosed by Melmoth because there are situations and environments that need an improved system and method of dead reckoning (Melmoth, [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakazawa is not explicit on the control of the nose direction of the airframe is a turn, however,
Melmoth discloses the control of the nose direction of the airframe is a turn (see at least [0060]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Nakazawa with the system disclosed by Melmoth because there are situations and environments that need an improved system and method of dead reckoning (Melmoth, [0006]).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210208606 A1 (“Nakazawa”) in view of US 20200234601 A1 (“Ivanov”) in further view of US 20250130596 A1 (“Melmoth”).
Regarding claim 13, Nakazawa in view of Ivanov is not explicit on the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is a yaw rotation on-the-spot, however,
Melmoth discloses the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is a yaw rotation on-the-spot (see at least [0056]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Nakazawa in view of Ivanov with the system disclosed by Melmoth because there are situations and environments that need an improved system and method of dead reckoning (Melmoth, [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Nakazawa in view of Ivanov is not explicit on the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is a yaw rotation on-the-spot, however,
Melmoth discloses the controlling of the nose direction of the airframe is a yaw rotation on-the-spot (see at least [0056]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Nakazawa in view of Ivanov with the system disclosed by Melmoth because there are situations and environments that need an improved system and method of dead reckoning (Melmoth, [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Nakazawa in view of Ivanov is not explicit on the control of the nose direction of the airframe is a turn, however,
Melmoth discloses the control of the nose direction of the airframe is a turn (see at least [0060]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Nakazawa in view of Ivanov with the system disclosed by Melmoth because there are situations and environments that need an improved system and method of dead reckoning (Melmoth, [0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Nakazawa in view of Ivanov is not explicit on the control of the nose direction of the airframe is a turn, however,
Melmoth discloses the control of the nose direction of the airframe is a turn (see at least [0060]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Nakazawa in view of Ivanov with the system disclosed by Melmoth because there are situations and environments that need an improved system and method of dead reckoning (Melmoth, [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON whose telephone number is (408)918-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 - 5:00 PST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272 - 7298. 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.
/MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665