DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10 it states “a the module is further to control the fan…” it is improper English stating “a the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim limitations “means to obtain a sensor data……,” “means to fuse the sensor data……,” and “means to control a fan…..” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 12-17 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. application 18/607,810
U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2
Claim 1: An apparatus for a load control system to control a load suspended from a carrier, comprising: a computer processor and a memory; a sensor suite to obtain a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of the load; a module in the memory to fuse the sensor data in a system model to thereby determine an estimated state of the load; a fan; wherein
a the module in the memory is further to control the fan array to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the estimated state of the load; wherein the load control system are configured to be located proximate to the load at a bottom of a suspension cable spanning between the load and the carrier.
Claim 1: An apparatus to control a load, comprising: a computer processor and a memory; a sensor suite, wherein the sensor suite is to obtain a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of the load; a data fusion module in the memory, wherein, when executed by the computer processor, the data fusion module is to determine a state estimate of the load in a coordinate frame based on the sensor data; a thruster; and a decision and control module in the memory, wherein, when executed by the computer processor, the decision and control module is to control the thruster to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the state estimate of the load in the coordinate frame and is to thereby control the load; wherein the thruster is configured to be located at, on, or proximate to the load at a bottom of a suspension cable beneath a carrier.
Claim 3: The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the data fusion module is to determine the state estimate of the load in the coordinate frame based on the sensor data by fusing the sensor data in a system model.
Claim 2: The apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the system model comprises at least one of a nonlinear adaptive model, a fuzzy-tuned proportional, integral, and derivative feedback control model with bidirectional communication, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a deep learning neural network, and a transfer function mode.
Claim 4: The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the system model comprises at least one of a nonlinear adaptive model, a fuzzy-tuned proportional, integral, and derivative feedback control model with bidirectional communication, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a deep learning neural network, and a transfer function model.
Claim 3: The apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein nonlinear adaptive model comprises an unscented Kalman filter.
Claim 5: The apparatus according to claim 4, wherein nonlinear adaptive model comprises an unscented Kalman filter.
Regarding claim 4: The apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the system model comprises state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the load control system, a movement and rotation of the load, and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
Claim 6: The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the system model comprises state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the load control system, a movement and rotation of the load, and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
Claim 5: The apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the module is to recursively estimate parameters of the system model and wherein the estimated state comprises the recursively estimated state parameters.
Claim 7: The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the data fusion module is to recursively estimate parameters of the system model and wherein the state estimate comprises the recursively estimated state parameters.
Claim 6: A method performed with a computer processor and a memory, wherein the method comprises: obtaining a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of a load from a sensor suite, wherein the load is suspended beneath a carrier on a suspension cable; fusing the sensor data in a system model and thereby determining an estimated state of the load; and controlling a fan to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the estimated state of the load.
Claim 11: A method performed with a computer processor and a memory, wherein the method comprises: obtaining a plurality of sensor data regarding a position and orientation of a load; fusing the plurality of sensor data in a system model and determining therefrom a state estimate of the load in a coordinate frame; controlling a thruster to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the state estimate of the load in the coordinate frame and thereby controlling the load; wherein the thruster is configured to be located at, on, or proximate to the load at a bottom of a suspension cable beneath the carrier.
Claim 9: The method according to Claim 6, wherein the system model comprises state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the load control system, a movement and rotation of the load, and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
Claim 12: The method according to claim 11, wherein the system model comprises state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the load, a movement and rotation of the thruster, and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
Claim 10: The method according to Claim 6, wherein determining the estimated state of the load comprises recursively estimating parameters of the system model.
Claim 13: The method according to claim 11, further comprising recursively estimating parameters of the system model and wherein the state estimate of the load in the coordinate frame comprises the recursively estimated state parameters.
Claim 12: An apparatus comprising: means to obtain a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of a load from a sensor suite, wherein the load is suspended beneath a carrier on a suspension cable;
means to fuse the sensor data in a system model and thereby determine an estimated state of the load; and
means to control a fan to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the estimated state of the load.
Claim 15: An apparatus comprising: means for a data fusion module and a decision and control module in a computer memory; means for a sensor suite, wherein the means for the sensor suite is to obtain a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of a load; means for a computer processor to execute the data fusion module and to thereby determine a state estimate of the load in a coordinate frame based on the sensor data; and means for the computer processor to execute the decision and control module and to thereby control a thruster to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the state estimate of the load in the coordinate frame and to thereby control the load; wherein the thruster is configured to be located at, on, or proximate to the load at a bottom of a suspension cable beneath a carrier.
Claim 16: The apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising means to determine the state estimate of the load in the coordinate frame based on the sensor data by fusing the sensor data in a system model.
Claim 15: The apparatus according to Claim 12, wherein the system model comprises state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the load control system, a movement and rotation of the load, and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
Claim 17: The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the system model comprises state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the thruster, a movement and rotation of the load, and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
Claim 16: The apparatus according to Claim 12, wherein to determine the estimated state of the load comprises means to recursively estimate parameters of the system model.
Claim 18: The apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising means for the system model to comprise state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the thruster, a movement and rotation of the load, and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of this instant invention are encompassed by the patented claims of U.S. patent 11,932,402 B2.
U.S. application 18/607,810
U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2
Claim 1: An apparatus for a load control system to control a load suspended from a carrier, comprising: a computer processor and a memory; a sensor suite to obtain a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of the load; a module in the memory to fuse the sensor data in a system model to thereby determine an estimated state of the load; a fan; wherein
a the module in the memory is further to control the fan array to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the estimated state of the load; wherein the load control system are configured to be located proximate to the load at a bottom of a suspension cable spanning between the load and the carrier.
Claim 12: An apparatus comprising: means to obtain a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of a load from a sensor suite, wherein the load is suspended beneath a carrier on a suspension cable;
means to fuse the sensor data in a system model and thereby determine an estimated state of the load; and
means to control a fan to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the estimated state of the load.
Claim 1: An apparatus for a load control system to control a load suspended from a carrier, comprising: a computer processor and a memory; a sensor suite to obtain a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of the load control system and/or load; a data fusion module in the memory to determine an estimated state of the load control system and/or load based on the sensor data; a fan array; and a decision and control module in the memory to control the fan array to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load control system and/or load based on the estimated state of the load control system and/or load to control the load suspended from the carrier; wherein the load control system, including the sensor suite, are configured to be located proximate to the load at a bottom of a suspension cable spanning between the load and the carrier.
Claim 5: The apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the module is to recursively estimate parameters of the system model and wherein the estimated state comprises the recursively estimated state parameters.
Claim 16: The apparatus according to Claim 12, wherein to determine the estimated state of the load comprises means to recursively estimate parameters of the system model.
Claim 17: The apparatus according to Claim 16, wherein the estimated state of the load comprises the parameters of the system model.
Claim 3: The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein to determine the estimated state of the load control system and/or load based on the sensor data comprises recursively predicting the estimated state based on a last previously estimated state, the sensor data, a system model, and an estimate of uncertainty of the estimated state.
Claim 2: The apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the system model comprises at least one of a nonlinear adaptive model, a fuzzy-tuned proportional, integral, and derivative feedback control model with bidirectional communication, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a deep learning neural network, and a transfer function mode.
Claim 3: The apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein nonlinear adaptive model comprises an unscented Kalman filter.
Claim 13: The apparatus according to Claim 12, wherein the system model comprises at least one of a nonlinear adaptive model, a fuzzy-tuned proportional, integral, and derivative feedback control model with bidirectional communication, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a deep learning neural network, and a transfer function mode.
Claim 14: The apparatus according to Claim 13, wherein nonlinear adaptive model comprises an unscented Kalman filter.
Claim 4: The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein recursively predicting the estimated physical state based on a last previously estimated physical state, the sensor data, the system model, and the estimate of uncertainty of the estimated physical state comprises processing the last previously estimated physical state, the sensor data, and the estimate of uncertainty of the estimated physical state in the system model with at least one of a non-linear data fusion method, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a Kalman filter, an unscented Kalman filter, a complimentary filter, or a transfer function model.
Claim 6: A method performed with a computer processor and a memory, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of a load from a sensor suite, wherein the load is suspended beneath a carrier on a suspension cable;
fusing the sensor data in a system model and thereby determining an estimated state of the load; and
controlling a fan to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the estimated state of the load.
Claim 8: A computer implemented method to control a load suspended from a carrier, comprising: with a computer processor and memory, obtaining a sensor data from a sensor suite regarding a position and orientation of the load; determining an estimated state of the load based on the sensor data; controlling a fan array to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the estimated state of the load to control the load suspended from the carrier; wherein the computer processor and memory and the sensor suite are configured to be located proximate to the load at a bottom of a suspension cable spanning between the load and the carrier.
Claim 10: The method according to Claim 6, wherein determining the estimated state of the load comprises recursively estimating parameters of the system model.
Claim 11: The method according to Claim 10, wherein the estimated state of the load comprises the parameters of the system model.
Claim 10: The computer implemented method according to claim 8, wherein determining the estimated state of the load control system and/or load based on the sensor data comprises recursively predicting the estimated state based on a last previously estimated state, the sensor data, a system model, and an estimate of uncertainty of the estimated state.
Claim 7: The method according to Claim 6, wherein the system model comprises at least one of a nonlinear adaptive model, a fuzzy-tuned proportional, integral, and derivative feedback control model with bidirectional communication, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a deep learning neural network, and a transfer function mode.
Claim 8: The method according to Claim 7, wherein nonlinear adaptive model comprises an unscented Kalman filter.
Claim 11: The computer implemented method according to claim 10, wherein recursively predicting the estimated physical state based on a last previously estimated physical state, the sensor data, the system model, and the estimate of uncertainty of the estimated physical state comprises processing the last previously estimated physical state, the sensor data, and the estimate of uncertainty of the estimated physical state in the system model with at least one of a non-linear data fusion method, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a Kalman filter, an unscented Kalman filter, a complimentary filter, or a transfer function model.
Claim 9: The method according to Claim 6, wherein the system model comprises state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the load control system, a movement and rotation of the load, and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
12. The computer implemented method according to claim 10, wherein the system model comprises at least one of mass of SLCS and load, cable length, inertia of SLCS and load, movement and rotation SLCS, movement and rotation of the carrier, and disturbance estimations of wind force, sea state, and relative SLCS and helicopter motion.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Claims 5, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Claims 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of this instant invention are encompassed by the patented claims of U.S. patent 11,618,566 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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)(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 1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buchmueller (U.S. patent pub. 2017/0197718 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Buchmueller discloses an apparatus for a load control system to control a load suspended from a carrier (abstract and figs. 1a and 1b), comprising:
a computer processor and a memory (fig. 5 and paragraph 0032);
a sensor suite to obtain a sensor data regarding a position and orientation of the load (paragraphs 0030-0031);
a module in the memory to fuse the sensor data in a system model to thereby determine an estimated state of the load (fig. 3a elements 280-283 and paragraphs 0030-0031);
a fan (paragraphs 0011 and 0024, propeller=fan); wherein
a the module in the memory is further to control the fan array to output at least one of a lateral force or torque on the load based on the estimated state of the load (paragraphs 0015, 0031, 0035, and 0037); wherein the
load control system are configured to be located proximate to the load at a bottom of a suspension cable spanning between the load and the carrier (fig. 2 elements 234, 254, 258, and 259 and paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 4: The apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the system model comprises state parameters, wherein the state parameters comprise at least one of a mass of at least the load (paragraphs 0043, 0055, a length of the suspension cable, an inertia of at least the load, a movement and rotation of the load control system, a movement and rotation of the load (paragraph 0029, 0031, and 0037, the sway is movement and rotation), and a movement and rotation of the carrier.
Regarding claim 5: The apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the module is to recursively estimate parameters of the system model and wherein the estimated state comprises the recursively estimated state parameters (paragraphs 0030, 0031, and 0037).
Regarding claim 6: See claim 1.
Regarding claim 9: See claim 4.
Regarding claim 10: See claim 5.
Regarding claim 11: The method according to Claim 10, wherein the estimated state of the load comprises the parameters of the system model (paragraphs 0030, 0031, and 0037).
Regarding claim 12: See claim 1.
Regarding claim 15: See claim 4.
Regarding claim 16: See claim 5.
Regarding claim 17: See claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
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 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmueller (U.S. patent pub. 2017/0197718 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sweeny et al. (WO 2019/055690 A1).
Regarding claim 2: Buchmueller does not teach the feature of “wherein the system model comprises at least one of a nonlinear adaptive model, a fuzzy-tuned proportional, integral, and derivative feedback control model with bidirectional communication, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a deep learning neural network, and a transfer function mode.” Sweeney et al. teaches the feature of “wherein the system model comprises at least one of a nonlinear adaptive model (Sweeney et al.; paragraph 0152, nonlinear algorithm/extended Kalman filter), a fuzzy-tuned proportional, integral, and derivative feedback control model with bidirectional communication, a real-time kinetic algorithm, a deep learning neural network (Sweeny et al.; paragraph 0082), and a transfer function mode. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Sweeny et al. to the disclosure of Buchmueller since they are analogous in the art carrying a payload/items by a unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Sweeny et al. to the disclosure of Buchmueller to “produce a real-time optimized prediction of the current position and/or orientation based on assumed uncertainties in the observed data” (Sweeny et al.; paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 3: Buchmueller does not teach “wherein nonlinear adaptive model comprises an unscented Kalman filter.” Sweeney teaches the feature of “wherein nonlinear adaptive model comprises an unscented Kalman filter” (Sweeney et al.; paragraph 0152, nonlinear algorithm/extended Kalman filter. A extended Kalman Filter is a unscented Kalman Filter.). See claim 2 for obvious and motivation statements.
Regarding claim 7: See claim 2. Also see claim 2 for obvious and motivation.
Regarding claim 8: See claim 3. Also see claim 2 for obvious and motivation.
Regarding claim 13: See claim 2. Also see claim 2 for obvious and motivation.
Regarding claim 14: See claim 3. Also see claim 2 for obvious and motivation.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 571-272-1000.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
March 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights