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 .
1. This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
3. The IDS filed 3/28/24 has been considered.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A. As per claim 3, the claim is unclear as to whether applicant intended all of the listed sensors to be included (note claim 2 uses “or” whereas claim 3 uses “and”; see also paragraph [0045] which prefaces the list with the phrase “at least one of”).
B. As per claim 19, the claim is unclear whether the “system” includes the additional element “integrated control center” or that the “system” merely transmits the expected emergency landing point to the integrated control center (i.e., does not impart further limits on the structure of the “system” itself).
C. All claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected for the same reasons.
5. 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.
6. 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.
6.1 Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nilsson et al. (US 2020/0193729).
A. As per claim 1, Nilsson discloses:
An aircraft (Fig. 1:2) comprising:
an aircraft body comprising a fuselage (2) [0037- unmanned flying vehicles];
a status information detection device disposed in or on the aircraft body (implicit in the information obtained [0035- signal transmitted from the drone 2 … may comprise various information … such as its position, height above ground level, its velocity, acceleration … status … and the wind and weather conditions];
a controller [0088- unmanned aerial vehicle 2 comprises processing circuitry 60, which may be any combination of one or more of a suitable central processing unit (CPU), multiprocessor, microcontroller, digital signal processor (DSP), etc., capable of executing software instructions stored in a computer program product 61, e.g. in the form of a storage medium 61] disposed in or on the aircraft body and configured to:
determine whether an emergency landing situation exists based on aircraft status information detected by the status information detection device [0034- drone 2 experiencing some malfunctioning (e.g. having identified a device not performing or acting as expected or having identified low battery voltage/lack of fuel)]; and
in response to a determination that the emergency landing situation exists, calculate an expected emergency landing point [0035- estimate when and where the drone 2 will crash]; and
an external output device disposed in or on the aircraft body and configured to output warning information toward the expected emergency landing point, wherein the warning information comprises a sound or a light [0041- In order to warn the users and other persons located in vicinity of a probable and possibly imminent drone failure, a warning sound may in addition be sent out directly from the falling drone 2. That is, the drone may in addition itself send out warning sounds in order to warn people; 0039- a colored (e.g. red) light on the drone 2 starts blinking when it has a failure and falls down].
B. As per claim 2, as above whereby the status information includes at least position, height above ground level (altitude), velocity (speed), acceleration, wind and weather conditions, etc. [0035].
C. As per claim 4, as above whereby the external output includes sound [0041- a warning sound may in addition be sent out directly from the falling drone 2] and lighting [0039- a colored (e.g. red) light on the drone 2 starts blinking when it has a failure and falls down].
D. As per claims 7 and 8, as above whereby warning information may be sent to an external device at the emergency landing point, including vehicles [0036- objects in the vicinity … can be configured to make sounds and flashes with their lights. Examples on such objects are lamp posts, vehicles, machines etc.]. Warnings may also be transmitted to personal mobile devices [0006- provides an efficient way to warn people about drone failures and imminent drone crashes. As a large part of the population brings along e.g. a smart phone, many persons can be reached in this way].
6.2 Claims 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai et al. (US 20121/0107643).
A. As per claim 10, Nagai discloses:
A method of warning about an emergency landing point of an aircraft [0005- providing a flying body that allows nearby people and the like to easily recognize that the flying body is landing; 0006- provide a warning in a velocity vector direction of the flying body], the method comprising:
detecting aircraft status information [0028- sensor group 20 includes an altimeter 60, an acceleration sensor 62; 0030- may include a global positioning system sensor (also referred to below as a “GPS sensor”), a speedometer, a gyro sensor];
determining whether an emergency landing situation exists based on the aircraft status information [0014- abnormality has occurred in the first power system that includes the first power source. In this way, when an abnormality occurs in the first power system and the rotating wing does not operate correctly];
in response to a determination that the emergency landing situation exists, calculating an expected emergency landing point based on the aircraft status information [0005- allows nearby people and the like to easily recognize that the flying body is landing or moving downward or in the direction of gravity; 0011- when the flying body moves in a direction diagonal to the vertical direction, it is easy to recognize the presence of the flying body from the planned arrival position on the ground];
controlling an external output device to be directed toward the expected emergency landing point [0065- light source actuator 210 adjusts the radiation direction of the visible light; 0066- speaker actuator 220 adjusts the output direction of the warning sound]; and
controlling to output warning information toward the expected emergency landing point using the external output device (Abs.- emits visible light toward the velocity vector direction of the aerial vehicle … outputs a warning sound toward the velocity vector direction of the aerial vehicle) [0005- allows nearby people and the like to easily recognize that the flying body is landing or moving downward].
B. As per claim 11, as above whereby the warning system uses both light and sound (Abs.- emits visible light toward the velocity vector direction of the aerial vehicle … outputs a warning sound toward the velocity vector direction of the aerial vehicle).
C. As per claim 13, as above whereby the expected emergency landing point is indicated based on current state of the aircraft [0005- allows nearby people and the like to easily recognize that the flying body is landing or moving downward or in the direction of gravity; 0011- when the flying body moves in a direction diagonal to the vertical direction, it is easy to recognize the presence of the flying body from the planned arrival position on the ground].
7. 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 non-obviousness.
7.1 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (US 2020/0193729) in view of Kim (KR 102555898) (reference is made to the translation provided).
As per claim 3, Nilsson is applied as above whereby various aircraft status information is taken into consideration [0035]. The claimed invention differs in that specific types of sensors are claimed. However, the number and types of sensors incorporated into an aircraft would have been dependent on the type of aircraft, configuration of the control systems of the aircraft, including whether the aircraft is manned or unmanned, use of aircraft (i.e., passengers, cargo, etc.), environmental conditions, etc. For example, Kim is in the same field of endeavor of aircraft and control thereof, including determining situations which require emergency landing (Abs.- an aerial vehicle for urban air mobility, which may comprise: a main body which can fly in the air; and an emergency landing notification device installed on the main body to detect the flight operation status of the main body to determine whether an emergency landing of the aerial vehicle is required, to determine a landing site to make an emergency landing of the aerial vehicle based on the result of the determination of whether an emergency landing is required, and to generate a notification indicating an emergency landing of the aerial vehicle from a notification generator located around the determined landing site). Kim provides a description of various types of sensors used to provide flight status information (attitude sensor, a gyro sensor, a global positioning system (GPS), a pitot tube (pressure), etc. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the aircraft art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate known aircraft sensors into the aircraft of Nilsson, as exemplified by Kim (supra), with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have provided the means of supplying the status information used by Nilsson in determining whether an emergency landing situation exists. As noted above, the number and types of sensors incorporated into the aircraft would have been dependent on the type of aircraft, configuration of the control systems of the aircraft, including whether the aircraft is manned or unmanned, use of aircraft (i.e., passengers, cargo, etc.), environmental conditions, etc.
7.2 Claims 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (US 2020/0193729) in view of Nagai et al. (US 20121/0107643).
A. As per claim 5, as above whereby Nilsson discloses providing audio and/or light warnings to alert persons in the vicinity of the landing area. Nilsson does not explicitly disclose where on the aircraft the devices for producing the warnings are located. Nagai discloses an emergency landing warning system as discussed in paragraph 6.2 above. In particular, Fig. 2 shows the audio and light warning devices (120,122) mounted on the lower portion of the exterior of the aircraft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Nilsson to locate the audio and light warning devices on the lower exterior of the aircraft as suggested by Nagai, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have provided for optimum viewing/hearing of individuals located on the ground beneath the aircraft.
B. As per claim 6, as noted above for claim 5 whereby Nagai further teaches that the audio and light warning devices may be adjustable to direct the warning toward the expected landing point (see Nagai: Abs.- emits visible light toward the velocity vector direction of the aerial vehicle … outputs a warning sound toward the velocity vector direction of the aerial vehicle; [0065- light source actuator 210 adjusts the radiation direction of the visible light; 0066- speaker actuator 220 adjusts the output direction of the warning sound]).
C. As per claim 9, as noted above whereby Nilsson discloses aircraft may be an unmanned or piloted aircraft [0037]. Fig. 1:2 appears to represent a rotorcraft or helicopter. The claimed invention specifically provides a wing system coupled to the fuselage. Nagai discloses aircraft with “rotating wings” such as a helicopter. Nagai also contemplates machines which do not include rotary wings such as a VTOL [0086]. Nagai further describes the drone as having “posture stabilizing wings” [0045]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from the combined teachings of Nilsson and Nagai that the incorporation of “wings” on the aircraft would have been a design choice based on application of use and/or environment whereby the emergency landing warning system would have been a desirable safety feature of any aircraft design.
7.3 Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (US 20121/0107643) in view of Kim (KR 102555898).
As per claim 12, Nagai is applied as above in claim 10 whereby a variety of sensors may be provided [0028, 0030]. Claim 12 differs in that it also includes atmospheric information. Kim discloses a plurality of sensor information typically included with aircraft status information. In addition to many of the status information disclosed by Nagai (supra), Kim also provides a pitot tube which measures atmospheric pressure changes (a pitot tube through which fluid (liquid or gas) flows … may sense or detect the altitude of the air vehicle 100 by using a change in pressure inside the pitot tube according to altitude). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Nagai to additionally include atmospheric information provided by a pitot tube, as disclosed by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have provided an additional source of information (i.e., altitude) to determine whether an emergency landing situation is present.
7.4 Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (US 20121/0107643) in view of Nilsson et al. (US 2020/0193729).
As per claims 14-17, Nagai is applied as above for claim 10 whereby a warning is also transmitted to an external service using wireless communications, including a base station connected to the Internet [0072]. The warning signals may be communicated to external devices (speakers) located in the vicinity of the current position of the drone [0073]. The warnings may also be communicated to a PC [0073]. Nagai is interpreted to at least disclose the transmitting of the expected landing point to external computing devices (PC) (“integrated control center”) with additional capabilities such as display of the current position of the drone on a map [0073]. While Nagai appears to disclose transmitting warning information to external devices based on the current position of the aircraft, the claimed invention specifically transmits the warning information to an external device or facility in the vicinity of the expected landing point. However, Nilsson discloses also providing the warning information to external devices located in the vicinity of the expected landing point to alert individuals located in the area [0036- objects in the vicinity … can be configured to make sounds and flashes with their lights. Examples on such objects are lamp posts, vehicles, machines etc.]. Warnings may also be transmitted to personal mobile devices [0006- provides an efficient way to warn people about drone failures and imminent drone crashes. As a large part of the population brings along e.g. a smart phone, many persons can be reached in this way]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Nagai with the teachings of Nilsson, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have provided a more comprehensive warning system by alerting individuals via various diverse means, thus reducing the likelihood of injury resulting from emergency landing of the aircraft. The various means of warning an individual would have necessarily been performed independently of one another (i.e., controlling the light/audio warnings, wireless transmission of warning signals, etc.) to limit any delay in issuing the warnings.
7.5 Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (US 2020/0193729) in view of Nagai et al. (US 20121/0107643) and Kim (KR 102555898).
As per claims 18-20, the teachings of Nilsson/Nagai/Kim, alone and in combination, are discussed above and are similarly applied to claims 18-20 which incorporate one or more features of each of claims 1 and 10, as well as additional features set forth in the dependent claims addressed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the aircraft arts prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nilsson/Nagai/Kim as discussed in one or more of the preceding paragraphs in the manner claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have provided a comprehensive warning system which warns individuals via various diverse means (visual, audio, transmitted alerts, etc.) thus reducing the likelihood of injury resulting from emergency landing of the aircraft at an expected landing point.
7.6 With regards to paragraphs 7.1-7.5 above, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular,
• Okada et al. (JP 2021086387)- estimates a fall position of the flight vehicle when an abnormality has occurred; transmits an alert to notify terminals which exist within the predetermined range from the estimated fall position; flight vehicle status information may be obtained from various sensors including acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor, a barometric pressure sensor, a radio altimeter, a global navigation satellite system (GNSS: Global Navigation Satellite System) and an inertial measurement unit (IMU); the alert may be transmitted to a mobile terminal such as a smartphone to warn surrounding people of the danger; the flight vehicle may also include an output unit to output an alarm such as a siren to easily notify the surrounding human beings of the danger.
• Tachiiwa (US 2020/0410878)- flight management device which includes an identification unit configured to identify that the flying device is likely to fall; a notification unit transmits a warning to a vehicle at a position corresponding to the position where the flying device is likely to fall; flying device estimates a caution area where the flying device is likely to fall on the basis of a flight speed and a flight direction of the flying device; the flying device includes an output unit which may output a warning to a vehicle within the caution area in the form of radiated light.
• Van Sise, Jr. (US 6,161,798)- emergency warning device for warning persons in danger of being struck by a disabled aircraft during an emergency landing procedure; the warning device consists of a mounting assembly mounted to the fuselage having a sound emitting device attached thereto.
• Winkle et al. (US 2019/0014461)- provides emergency alerts to predicted emergency landing locations of a UAV; sensors detect status of the UAV during flight; notifies users provided with electronic devices that the UAV is going to execute an emergency landing at the predicted emergency landing location; the UAV may also generate an audible alert (e.g., a siren or verbal warning) via an audio output warning people in the predicted emergency landing location.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. ZANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6969. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 9-4; Th 9-2.
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, Ramya P. Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/MICHAEL J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661