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 .
EXAMINER’S NOTE
This office action is written in response to Applicant’s amended claim set filed February 28, 2024 which renders the previously filed Restriction Requirement of November 5, 2025 moot. Said Restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn and a proper rejection follows below.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed February 28, 2024. Claims 25-28 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 27, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon et al. (US 10364026; hereinafter Hanlon), in view of Thracy et al. (US 3149803; hereinafter Thracy), and further in view of Tu (US 20180319495; of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 25,
Hanlon teaches
A method of calculating a position of a tethered, unmanned aerial vehicle, (Hanlon: Abstract) comprising the steps of:
measuring a gimbal orientation… (Hanlon: Column 6, Line 9-13; The tether is attached to the UAV by way of the gimbal which means that the tether angle corresponds to the gimbal angle at the UAV.)
…
calculating an approximate tether vector (Hanlon: Column 8, Line 62 – Column 9, Line 2) from the altitude (Hanlon: Column 8, Line 51-55) and gimbal orientation; (Hanlon: Column 8, Line 30-50) and
calculating an approximate position of the tethered unmanned aerial vehicle to the ground unit by adding the approximate tether vector to the ground unit position. (Hanlon: Column 8, Line 62 – Column 9, Line 8; The shuttle is the ground unit and it is able to calculate the position of the UAV relative to the shuttle by using the angle and magnitude (length) of the tether.)
Hanlon does not teach
…from a gimbal positioned substantially centrally to an unmanned aerial vehicle airframe, the gimbal physically attached at a first end to a fixed point relative to the unmanned aerial vehicle and at a second end to a tether connected to a ground unit;
measuring an aircraft altitude from an altitude sensor or a pressure sensor;
acquiring a ground unit position from a position sensor on the ground unit;
…
However on the same field of endeavor, Thracy teaches
…
…from a gimbal positioned substantially centrally to an unmanned aerial vehicle airframe, (Thracy: Column 1, Line 67-72: The yoke described in the reference is a type of gimbal for the tether.) the gimbal physically attached at a first end to a fixed point relative to the unmanned aerial vehicle (Thracy: Column 2, Line 66 – Column 3, Line 2, FIG. 2, Element 39; The yoke is attached to the drone in such a way where the yoke is allowed to move in three dimensions but is a part of the overall gimbal which is fixedly attached to the drone.) and at a second end to a tether connected to a ground unit; (Thracy: Column 1, Line 67-72, Column 2, Line 32-35, FIG. 1)
…
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tethered UAV position calculation method of Hanlon with the tether and gimbal of Thracy for the benefit of a hovering platform which may be easily transported on the ground…which is compact in size, which will have an indefinite hovering duration. (Thracy: Column 1, Line 41-44)
Hanlon, in view of Thracy, does not teach
…
measuring an aircraft altitude from an altitude sensor or a pressure sensor;
acquiring a ground unit position from a position sensor on the ground unit;
…
However in the same field of endeavor, Tu teaches
…
measuring an aircraft altitude from an altitude sensor or a pressure sensor; (Tu: Paragraph [0085])
acquiring a ground unit position from a position sensor on the ground unit; (Tu: Paragraph [0062])
…
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tethered UAV and tether position calculation method of Hanlon and Thracy with the altitude and position sensors of Tu for the benefit of expanded and more efficient uses of unmanned drones. (Tu: Paragraph [0004])
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon, in view of Thracy, and further in view of Tu, as applied to claim 25 above, and even further in view of Ducharme et al. (US 20170147007; hereinafter Ducharme).
Regarding Claim 26,
Hanlon, in view of Thracy and further in view of Tu, teaches
an altimeter (Tu: Paragraph [0085]) and
The method of claim 25, further comprising:
Hanlon, in view of Tu, does not teach
measuring an attitude of the tethered, unmanned aerial vehicle from an attitude sensor; and
calculating the approximate tether vector further based on the attitude.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ducharme teaches
measuring an attitude of the tethered, unmanned aerial vehicle from an attitude sensor; and (Ducharme: Paragraph [0047])
calculating the approximate tether vector further based on the attitude. (Ducharme: Paragraph [0047])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tethered UAV position calculation method of Hanlon, Thracy, and Tu, with the attitude sensor and calculations made based on the attitude of Ducharme for the benefit of being able to maintain a consistent visual monitoring of a specified area. (Ducharme: Paragraph [0003])
Regarding Claim 27,
Hanlon, in view of Thracy, further in view of Tu, and even further in view of Ducharme, teaches
The method of claim 26, wherein the attitude sensor is an inertial navigation unit. (Tu: Paragraph [0085], [0108], [0118])
The motivation to combine Hanlon, Thracy, Tu, and Ducharme is the same as stated for Claim 26 above.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon, in view of Thracy, and further in view of Tu, as applied to claim 25 above, and even further in view of Pan (US 20180274919).
Regarding Claim 28,
Hanlon, in view of Thracy, and further in view of Tu, teaches
The method of claim 25, further comprising:
…
…the tether physically connected to the unmanned aerial vehicle; and (Thracy: Column 2, Line 66-69, Fig. 1 and 6)
...
Hanlon, in view of Thracy, and further in view of Tu, does not teach
...
obtaining a first barometric pressure measurement from a first barometric pressure sensor physically connected to the tethered unmanned aerial vehicle;
obtaining a second barometric pressure measurement from a second barometric pressure sensor physically connected to a ground unit positioned on the opposite end of a tether,…
calculating the altitude based on the difference between the first and second barometric pressure measurements.
However in the same field of endeavor, Pan teaches
...
obtaining a first barometric pressure measurement from a first barometric pressure sensor physically connected to the tethered unmanned aerial vehicle; (Pan: Paragraph [0039], [0061])
obtaining a second barometric pressure measurement from a second barometric pressure sensor physically connected to a ground unit positioned on the opposite end of a tether,… (Pan: Paragraph [0039], [0061])
calculating the altitude based on the difference between the first and second barometric pressure measurements. (Pan: Paragraph [0061])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tethered unmanned aerial vehicle of Hanlon, Thracy, and Tu, with the use of barometric pressure to calculate the altitude of the UAV of Pan for the benefit of improved barometer systems for estimating the altitude of a mobile unit. (Pan: Paragraph [0004])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663