DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-20 as originally presented and filed on 04/01/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is 03/30/2023.
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims priority to Provisional Application Number 63/455,841 filed on 03/30/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim . Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9, 10, 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
none of the prior art either alone or in combination with any other prior art teaches or renders obvious any of wherein the at least one robotic device further comprises at least one compression spring and an ejector plate located between the at least one compression spring and the adaptor,
or wherein the one or more first commands cause the latch release mechanism to release the at least one latch from the at least one latch receptable, thereby causing the at least one compression spring to eject the ejector plate and the adaptor,
or a safety hole configured to receive a solenoid shaft, wherein the latch mechanism is unable to release if the solenoid shaft is located within the safety hole,
or wherein the least one linear actuator is configured to push against at least one compression spring when the linear actuator is in the second position, wherein the at least one compression spring holds the latching mechanism in a locked position when the at least one linear actuator is in the first position.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190082015 A1 to Husain; Syed Mohammad Amir et al. (Husain) in view of US 20160304217 A1 to Fisher; James Mark et al. (Fisher).
Regarding claim 1 Husain teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
415
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
698
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
638
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
679
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
695
441
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
562
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a robotic system, comprising (as shown above, Fig. 16 connotes a robotic system, in for example para:
“[0094] FIG. 16 is a perspective view diagram illustrating a distributed sensorlet system”):
at least one robotic device (as shown in fig. 16 above at least one robotic device 1601 as explained in for example para:
“[0094] FIG. 16 is a perspective view diagram illustrating a distributed sensorlet system according to at least one embodiment. Distributed sensorlet system 1600 comprises a host platform, such as UAV 1601, for aerially dispersing sensorlets to their deployed locations. In accordance with at least one embodiment, the host platform may individually disperse sensorlets, as shown by UAV 1601 individually dispersing sensorlets 1603, 1604, and 1605 via chute 1602 of UAV 1601. In accordance with at least one embodiment, the host platform may deploy a unitized container 1606 holding a plurality of sensorlets. Unitized container 1606 is configured to open and release the contained sensorlets. As one example, a preexisting seam may be defined between a first portion 1607 and a second portion 1608 of unitized container 1606, and the seam may be configured to separate to release the contained sensorlets. For example, unitized container 1606 may be configured to utilize aerodynamic drag to create force to separate first portion 1607 from second portion 1608 of unitized container 1606. As another example, unitized container 1606 may be equipped with a device, such as a linear shaped charge, to split apart unitized container 1606 to release the contained sensorlets. As shown, the separation of first portion 1607 and second portion 1608 releases sensorlets 1609, 1610, 1611, 1612, and 1613, among others.”),
the at least one robotic device comprising a latch mechanism and an adaptor configured to receive a payload (wherein it is considered that given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) unitized container 1606 connotes “an adaptor configured to receive a payload” wherein the payload connotes sensortlets1609-1613 as shown in Fig. 16 above and explained in for example paras [0094]+:
“[0096] A unitized container containing a plurality of sensorlets can be attached to mounting points on a host platform, for example, a UAV, an aerostat UAS, or another aircraft, such as an airplane or a helicopter. The attachment can be in the form, as one example, of a releasable latch or, as another example, in the form of an electroexplosive device (EED), such as an exploding bolt that can be remotely triggered to release the unitized container from the host platform.”),
the latch mechanism configured to hold the payload in the adaptor (given the BRI as is understood releasable latch holds the payload in the adapter until the “unitized container 1606 is released from the host platform 1601);
a controller configured to receive a user input (Given the BRI connotes “ordinance use controller 1001”);
and at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the at least one robotic device (as shown in fig. 2 wherein it is understood that antenna 213 is connected to at least one computing device coupled to the robotic device explained in para:
“[0037] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a distributed sensorlet system in accordance with at least one embodiment. Distributed sensorlet system 100 comprises communications subsystem 201, tracking subsystem 202, processing subsystem 203, ordnance subsystem 204, database subsystem 205, navigation subsystem 206, dynamics subsystem 207, sensor subsystem 208, propulsion subsystem 209, and power subsystem 210. Each of such subsystems is coupled to at least another of such subsystems. In the illustrated example, the subsystems are coupled to each other via interconnect 211. Communications subsystem 201 may be coupled to antennas, such as satellite antenna 212 and terrestrial antenna 213. Other embodiments may be implemented with a subset of the above subsystems or with additional subsystems beyond the above subsystems or a subset thereof.”),
the at least one computing device configured to:
issue one or more commands to the at least one robotic device based on a user input via the controller (connotes a user authorizing use of ordinance as explained in for example para:
“[0070] Ordnance use controller 1001 manages confirmation of authority to use ordnance 1005. For example, ordnance use controller can receive a message via communications subsystem 201, which may have been decrypted via cryptographic system 1106, to authorize the use of ordnance 1005 ...”).
the one or more first commands causing the robotic device to release the latch mechanism and release the payload from the adaptor (as explained in for example para:
“[0071] Ordnance launch controller 1002 controls a launch sequence of ordnance 1005 when ordnance use controller 1001 has confirmed authority to use ordnance 1005. Ordnance launch controller 1002 monitors conditions for a safe launch of ordnance 1005 and is able to inhibit launch when such conditions are not met and to proceed with launch when such conditions are met.”).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2019], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
While it is considered that Husain teaches the invention as explained above, it may also be considered that Husain does not appear to expressly disclose a controller configured to receive a user input;
and at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the at least one robotic device,
the at least one computing device configured to:
issue one or more commands to the at least one robotic device based on a user input via the controller,
the one or more first commands causing the robotic device to release the latch mechanism and release the payload from the adaptor. (Emphasis added).
In analogous art Fisher teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image7.png
717
516
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
618
498
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
624
495
media_image9.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a controller configured to receive a user input (connotes helmet 200 and UAV control eyewear 300 “the user being able to aim and fire projectiles” as shown in the figures above and explained in for example paras:
“[0100] FIG. 1A through 3B illustrate perspective views of a helmet 200 and UAV control eyewear 300 with a docking port 220 for a compact personal UAV 100, as well as a UAV 100 configured to be able to launch from and land on said helmet 200, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. Said UAV 100 can incorporate cameras 150 and sensors in various arrangements, a power source 140, propulsion systems such as rotor blades 110, which may be shrouded by rings 120 or shrouds or cages, and arms 130 optionally capable of articulating or bending in order to change the attitude of propulsion systems 110 for improved flight control, and also to enable the UAV 100 to conform to the shape of the docking station 220 for compact, low-profile storage. Said helmet 200 incorporates a docking port 230 that engages with a docking mechanism 160 on said UAV 100, and which can provide automated locking/securing, charging or refueling and data connectivity capabilities for said UAV 100. Said docking port may incorporate target beacons 240, which make it easier for said UAV to accurately dock with said helmet. Said docking port beacons 240 or landing assistance mechanisms may incorporate any combination of visual markers, infra-red emitters, lasers, lights, radio, sonic, or ultra-sonic emitters, or other means of guiding said UAV into the docking port. Said UAV may incorporate complimentary sensors capable of using the beacons or other means for guiding itself onto the helmet docking port. Said dock may emit a “homing beam” 1500, which may emit approximately perpendicular to the dock port. Said homing beam may take the form of light, laser, infra-red, radio waves or any other spectra and may be used to assist a drone in targeting the dock when docking. In addition, triangulation lines 1510 indicate drone identification of target position and orientation. Said helmet docking port may incorporate cameras 210 and other sensors and supporting systems capable of gathering video, audio, night-vision footage and other sensor information and feeding such information in real-time to the wearer 310 by means of heads-up display or projection system or digital display integrated into the wearer's eyewear 300 and microphones integrated into the helmet docking port 200 or earphones, as well as to other friendly combatants, and remote battle coordinators. Said UAVs may also act as aerial relays for information or data feeds between friendly troops. Applications are not limited to military use and may include sports, exploration, surveying, wildlife management, policing, game play such as electronic tag or paintball games, etc. A homing beam 1500 may be emitted in the form of laser, infra-red, microwave, or other spectra for the purpose of guiding a drone to land. In addition or alternatively, sensors and emitters on the drone and dock and communications between the drone and docking system. Triangulation lines 1510 indicate targeting and orientation determination for successful docking.
[0102] FIG. 4B-C illustrate perspective views of the UAV 400 docked onto the user's helmet 200, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. Cameras, sensors and projectile launchers may be configured to be able to function while on the helmet, according to some embodiments. The helmet-wearer is able to control the UAV functions and view live camera and sensor feeds from said UAV in a digital display. Such digital display may be built into eyewear, face mask, contact lenses, etc. or be a projected heads-up display. The user may optionally also be able to aim and fire projectiles from the UAV 400 while it is docked as depicted in FIG. 4C, or while it is in the air.”);
and at least one computing device communicatively coupled to at least one robotic device (as shown in the figures above, UAV 100 connotes at least one robotic device),
the at least one computing device configured to:
issue one or more commands to the at least one robotic device based on a user input via the controller (in Para [0102] above “…Such digital display may be built into eyewear, face mask, contact lenses, etc. or be a projected heads-up display. The user may optionally also be able to aim and fire projectiles from the UAV 400 while it is docked as depicted in FIG. 4C, or while it is in the air.” And para:
[0059] The disclosed invention may include UAV flight and operational control mechanisms integrated into said helmet or facemask or eyewear. Such mechanisms may include feedback mechanisms wherein video and audio and night-vision footage from a personal UAV can be streamed live to microphones in the wearer's helmet and to a digital display or heads-up display, augmented-reality or virtual-reality display projection system integrated into the user's eyewear. The user can optionally control said UAVs by any combination of such means as voice control, head movement, eye movement, hand movement, body movement, foot movement, and/or hand-held or hand-operated controllers, as well as smart phones and smart wristbands. The helmet or headgear may optionally incorporate cameras and other sensors that may be used in concert with data from said UAVs to coordinate UAV activity. Live data and video feeds from the UAV may be projected into the helmet wearer's display to provide first-person viewer control over the UAV, as well as optional surround video footage. The user can optionally instruct the UAV to face and or fly in whichever direction the helmet wearer is focused, or its control can be selected to be autonomous or controlled via alternative means such as voice command or a hand-held controller, thereby enabling the helmet wearer to turn his head in any direction to view video footage from cameras facing that direction, without influencing the UAV's orientation or flight path.”);
the one or more first commands causing the robotic device to release a payload from an adaptor (connotes firing projectiles from the UAV as explained in for example para:
“[0101] FIG. 4A depicts an armed compact personal UAV 400 with one or more cameras 140 and a projectile launcher 450, in this case with two barrels, according to some embodiments. The launcher may fire lethal or non-lethal weapon systems, such as small anti-personnel devices. According to one embodiment, such systems may include CO2 propelled anti-personnel projectiles, explosive darts for combat situations, electrical stun-darts for neutralization of criminals or combatants, tear gas canisters, stun grenades, or drug-dosing darts such as may be useful for game wardens.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user controls of the UAV disclosed in Fisher with the UAV controls taught in Husain with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed a user to aim and fire projectiles while in flight as taught by Fisher Para(s) [0102] above.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 1, further comprising a display (see Fisher UAV control eyewear 300),
wherein the at least one robotic device further comprises at least one camera (see Fisher camera 100 in fig. 1A and para [0100] above),
wherein the display is remote from the at least one robotic device and is configured to display video, images, and/or audio captured by the at least one camera of the at least one robotic device (see Fisher UAV control eyewear 300 on Helmet 200 and paras [0100]:
“…Said helmet docking port may incorporate cameras 210 and other sensors and supporting systems capable of gathering video, audio, night-vision footage and other sensor information and feeding such information in real-time to the wearer 310 by means of heads-up display or projection system or digital display integrated into the wearer's eyewear 300 and microphones integrated into the helmet docking port 200 or earphones”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user controls of the UAV disclosed in Fisher with the UAV controls taught in Husain with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed a user to aim and fire projectiles while in flight as taught by Fisher Para(s) [0102] above.
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 2, wherein the display comprises a mobile device (see Fisher para:
“[0059] The disclosed invention may include UAV flight and operational control mechanisms integrated into said helmet or facemask or eyewear. Such mechanisms may include feedback mechanisms wherein video and audio and night-vision footage from a personal UAV can be streamed live to microphones in the wearer's helmet and to a digital display or heads-up display, augmented-reality or virtual-reality display projection system integrated into the user's eyewear. The user can optionally control said UAVs by any combination of such means as voice control, head movement, eye movement, hand movement, body movement, foot movement, and/or hand-held or hand-operated controllers, as well as smart phones and smart wristbands. The helmet or headgear may optionally incorporate cameras and other sensors that may be used in concert with data from said UAVs to coordinate UAV activity. Live data and video feeds from the UAV may be projected into the helmet wearer's display to provide first-person viewer control over the UAV, as well as optional surround video footage. The user can optionally instruct the UAV to face and or fly in whichever direction the helmet wearer is focused, or its control can be selected to be autonomous or controlled via alternative means such as voice command or a hand-held controller, thereby enabling the helmet wearer to turn his head in any direction to view video footage from cameras facing that direction, without influencing the UAV's orientation or flight path.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display disclosed in Fisher with the display taught in Husain with a reasonable expectation of success because it was a known equivalent for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-01.2024] II. SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. “ In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art”.
As is here Fisher expressly teaches in para [0054] prior art recognized equivalent components for controlling UAV’s.
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the at least one robotic device comprises an unmanned ground vehicle, (see Fisher Fig. 6 and para:
“[0104] FIG. 6 illustrates a perspective view of a personal UAV 100, which has landed on terrain 380 or surface other than a docking station, and in which the protective rings incorporate hubless wheels 122, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The depicted UAV is capable of traversing over terrain 380 on said wheels 122, as well as flying and landing.”);
PNG
media_image10.png
336
524
media_image10.png
Greyscale
an unmanned aerial device (see Husain Figs. 1 and 16 above),
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the latch mechanism comprises at least one latch,
at least one latch receptacle configured to receive the at least one latch,
and a latch release mechanism configured to release the at least one latch from the at least one latch receptacle (see Husain para [0096] above wherein it is considered that a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) understands that a latch needs the claimed limitations in order to operate as a “releasable latch”).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the at least one robotic device is communicatively coupled to the at least one computing device via a wireless connection (see Husain Fig. 2 communications subsystem 201 and para:
“[0037] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a distributed sensorlet system in accordance with at least one embodiment. Distributed sensorlet system 100 comprises communications subsystem 201, tracking subsystem 202, processing subsystem 203, ordnance subsystem 204, database subsystem 205, navigation subsystem 206, dynamics subsystem 207, sensor subsystem 208, propulsion subsystem 209, and power subsystem 210. Each of such subsystems is coupled to at least another of such subsystems. In the illustrated example, the subsystems are coupled to each other via interconnect 211. Communications subsystem 201 may be coupled to antennas, such as satellite antenna 212 and terrestrial antenna 213. Other embodiments may be implemented with a subset of the above subsystems or with additional subsystems beyond the above subsystems or a subset thereof.”).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the at least one robotic device is configured to receive a plurality of adaptors configured for different payload profiles (see for example the teachings of Husain para:
“[0066] Ordnance 1005 may, for example, be a sensorlet carrying an explosive payload. For example, the explosive payload may comprise an explosive charge in an unprefragmented housing, an explosive charge in a prefragmented housing, thermobaric explosive payload, an electromagnetic explosive payload, or another type of explosive payload. Ordnance 1005 may comprise a charging subsystem 1009, which may, for example, cooperate with power subsystem 210 to allow charging (and subsequent recharging) of ordnance 1005. As an example, ordnance 1005 in the form of a sensorlet can include a rechargeable battery to power a propulsion system, such as a propeller system. Charging subsystem 1009 can charge the rechargeable battery of the sensorlet. The sensorlet can be deployed on multiple sorties, being recharged from time to time to continue to power the propulsion system over the multiple sorties. The rechargeable battery of the sensorlet can also power other systems of the sensorlet besides the propulsion system.”).
Regarding claim 20 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the at least one robotic device is an unmanned ground vehicle comprising one or more wheels or an unmanned aerial device (UAD) (see the teachings of Fisher (one or more wheels) and both Husain and Fisher (UAD) above respectively in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Claims 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190082015 A1 to Husain; Syed Mohammad Amir et al. (Husain) in view of US 20160304217 A1 to Fisher; James Mark et al. (Fisher) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20220171599 A1 to KRISPIN; YESHAYA.
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 2, wherein the display is configured to attach to a garment worn by an operator of robotic system (given the BRI, while it is considered that the display 300 of Fisher is attached to the helmet however a helmet is typically not considered a garment. As such resort may be he to the teaching of Krispin wherein it is known to attach displays to garments in for example paras:
“[0002] The present disclosure relates to a wearable personal visual communication unit. In particular, the present disclosure relates to such systems designed to be worn or attached to one's garment during use ..”.
[0072] Reference is now made to FIG. 4A, there is provided a signaling mechanism of the personal security platform, which is generally indicated at 600A, designed for use by a rider of an open vehicle. Herein the specification and claims, the term “open vehicle” is used to denote a motorcycle, moped, motor scooter, manual, powered bicycle, skis, snowboard, sledge or any other mode of transportation wherein items worn by rider are exposed and readily visible to other surrounding viewers. The system 600 comprises a wearable item 612, a control interface 614, and a controller.”.
PNG
media_image11.png
318
542
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display disclosed in KRISPIN with the display taught in the combination of Husain and Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “allowed the display of pertinent information to third parties” as taught by KRISPIN Para(s) Col. Lines :
“[0005] However, for much of the time, the display may be blank or underused. There is a need therefore to provide a system which may display pertinent information visually to the third parties. The invention described herein addresses the above-described needs.”.
Regarding claim 19 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to attach to a garment worn by an operator of robotic system (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 3 above incorporated herein by reference.).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190082015 A1 to Husain; Syed Mohammad Amir et al. (Husain) in view of US 20160304217 A1 to Fisher; James Mark et al. (Fisher) as applied to the claims above in view of US 10499037 B1 to Wilcox; Scott Michael.
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Husain and Fisher does not appear to expressly disclose however in the art of UAV camera field of view Wilcox teaches, wherein the at least one camera comprises a 180-degree view camera (in for example Fig. 5 and para:
“(41) FIG. 5 illustrates a top view of the UAV 300 in accordance with at least one example. In the view illustrated in FIG. 5, it may be apparent that the stereo cameras of the UAV 300 may include corresponding fields of vision 504-508. For example, the first stereo camera, including the cameras 304A and 304B, may be configured to provide a first field of vision 502. Similarly, the other stereo cameras may be configured to provide other corresponding fields of vision 504-508. In some examples, each of the fields of vision 502-508 may correspond to the field of vision that the respective stereo camera can capture. In some examples, each of the fields of vision 502-508 may be of roughly the same size (e.g., 120 degrees). In some examples, certain portions of the fields of vision 502-508 may overlap. In some examples, each of the fields of vision 502-508 may be of different sizes, which may be lesser than or greater than 120 degrees. For example, two stereo cameras with fields of vision of about 180 degrees may be used in accordance with the techniques described herein.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the camera field of view disclosed in Wilcox with the camera field of view taught in the combination of Husain and Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success because the selection of the field of view is a known equivalent for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-01.2024] II. SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. “ In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art”.
As is here Wilcox expressly teaches in para (41) above prior art recognized equivalent field of views for controlling UAV’s.
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190082015 A1 to Husain; Syed Mohammad Amir et al. (Husain) in view of US 20160304217 A1 to Fisher; James Mark et al. (Fisher) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20090287363 A1 to Young; Stuart H.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Husain and Fisher does not appear to expressly disclose however in the art of UAV control Young teaches wherein the controller comprises a joystick and/or one or more buttons (in for example para:
“[0023] It should be noted that the foregrip of the weapon could be coupled to another controller with at least some of the features of the first and second controllers. In fact, the controller on the foregrip can include a joystick and one or more buttons that are similar to the first controller of the pistol grip.”).
And the figures below:
PNG
media_image12.png
714
549
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
487
678
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
759
493
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine UAV control taught in Young with the UAV control taught in the combination of Husain and Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a joystick and buttons is a known equivalent for the same purpose of controlling a UAV. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-01.2024] II. SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. “ In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art”.
As is here Young expressly teaches prior art recognized equivalents for controlling UAV’s in for example para:
“[0024] FIG. 3 is a perspective view of an exemplary embodiment of a handgrip of a weapon as shown in FIG. 2. The handgrip 4 can be replaceable and can have different grip size or can be replaced with a handgrip that is not integrated with a controller. The handgrip 4 can include a rocker instead of a joystick. It should be noted that the controllers are not limited to joystick 7, rocker 9, and buttons 8, but are generally a device that receives mechanical inputs, e.g., pushing the buttons or moving the joysticks, from a soldier to communicate with the robot.”.
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190082015 A1 to Husain; Syed Mohammad Amir et al. (Husain) in view of US 20160304217 A1 to Fisher; James Mark et al. (Fisher) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20090040307 A1 to Rubin; Ofer.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Husain and Fisher does not appear to expressly disclose however in the art of UAV control Rubin teaches wherein the at least one robotic device is communicatively coupled to the at least one computing device via a wired connection (in for example para:
“[0159] A fifth embodiment of the first example of the present invention is shown schematically in FIGS. 5a and 5b, and comprises all the elements of the third embodiment as described above, mutatis mutandis, with the following differences. In this embodiment, camera (14) is supported by a remotely controlled secondary platform, such as a remotely controlled airplane (65) (also referred to herein as a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle), a CUAV (cable-UAV) or a TCUAV (train-cable-UAV)). Airplane (65) is capable of traveling in all desired directions, but is nevertheless limited in the distance it may travel, at least by the length of woundable flexible cable (42). Although, as described above, the flight path of conventional remotely controlled airplanes is generally not restricted in this manner, in the present invention, a restricted flight path is preferable in order to maintain flight relatively close to the area requiring surveillance along a highway (10). Additional advantages associated with joining airplane (65) to mobile platform (16) via cable (42) are described herein below. This enables the airplane (65), and particularly the camera, to be repositioned to different desired locations in a short amount of time. Alternatively, a remotely controlled helicopter (not shown), a motorized parachute (not shown), a paramotor glider (paraglider) (44) (see FIG. 5b), a remotely controlled blimp or zeppelin type of aircraft (not shown) or any Vertical Take-Off And Landing (VTOL) aircraft may be utilized.”)
and the figure reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image15.png
744
456
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine UAV control taught in Rubin with the UAV control taught in the combination of Husain and Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of wired connection is a known equivalent for the same purpose of controlling a UAV. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-01.2024] II. SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190082015 A1 to Husain; Syed Mohammad Amir et al. (Husain) in view of US 20160304217 A1 to Fisher; James Mark et al. (Fisher) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20090040307 A1 to Rubin; Ofer as applied to the claims above in view of MPEP 2144.04. V. MAKING PORTABLE, INTEGRAL, SEPARABLE, ADJUSTABLE, OR CONTINUOUS
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the robotic system of claim 11, further comprising a cable reel configured to attach to a garment worn by an operator of the robotic system and manage the wired connection between the at least one computing device and the at least one robotic device (see the teachings of Rubin above with regard to cable reel 41 and the teachings of Fisher with regard to wearing the robot system in garments).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cable reel of Rubin portable and to attach it to a garment worn by the operator of Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed portable wired control of the UAV of Husain.
In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) (Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190082015 A1 to Husain; Syed Mohammad Amir et al. (Husain) in view of US 20160304217 A1 to Fisher; James Mark et al. (Fisher) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20220177125 A1 to Abdellatif; Fadl et al. (Abdellatif).
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Husain and Fisher does not appear to expressly disclose however in the art of UAV safety pins Abdellatif teaches, further comprising a safety hole configured to receive a safety pin, wherein the latch mechanism is unable to release if the safety pin is located within the safety hole (in for example paras:
“[0075] FIGS. 11A-11C are a series of top cross-sectional views of a docking hook 1130 of a UAV illustrating a magnetic crawler entering (via docking rod 1174) and being passively secured to the docking hook 1130, according to an embodiment. Here, the magnetic crawler enters the docking hook 1130 in the crawler entry direction 1176, encountering the notched sides of the entry latches 1133 (FIG. 11A). The passive entry latches 1133 give way under the force of the docking rod 1174 and start to separate, creating an opening (FIG. 11B). Once fully open, the entry latches 1133 allow the docking rod 1174 to enter, at which point the spring-loaded entry latches 1133 shut behind the docking rod 1174 and secure the docking rod 1174 to the docking hook 1130. The exit latches 1134 remain locked because of the locking pins (e.g., locking pins 936) inserted into safety lock holes (e.g., safety lock holes 1035) of the exit latches 1134.
[0076] In further detail with reference to FIGS. 11A-11C, these drawings illustrate how the magnetic crawler enters (as shown from the top of the drawings) in order to dock into the UAV (or more precisely, the docking hook 1130 of the UAV). The entry latches 1133 allow the docking rod 1174 to enter but not to exit (in either forward or reverse directions to the crawler entry direction 1176). The crawler's docking rod 1174 opens these spring-loaded latches 1133, which then shut behind the docking rod 1174 after entry. The exit latches 1134 are secured shut and do not open even if the magnetic crawler keeps driving forward because there are safety locking pins holding these latches 1134 in place. Accordingly, the magnetic crawler stays secured in place during flight between these four latches 1133 and 1134.“)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine UAV safety pins taught in Abdellatif with the UAV latch control taught in the combination of Husain and Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of safety pins is a known equivalent for the latching UAV payloads. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-01.2024] II. SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claims 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190082015 A1 to Husain; Syed Mohammad Amir et al. (Husain) in view of US 20160304217 A1 to Fisher; James Mark et al. (Fisher) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20080290222 A1 to Aston; Richard W. et al. (Aston).
Regarding claim 17 the combination of Husain and Fisher does not appear to expressly disclose however in the art of payload deployment Aston teaches wherein the at least one robotic device comprises at least one linear actuator configured to move the latching mechanism from a first position to a second position in response to the one or more first commands (in for example paras:
“[0009] Systems and methods for releasing a spacecraft payload at a substantially constant velocity are disclosed. A linear actuator is used that includes a spring loaded and fluid filled chamber. The spring drives against a piston within the chamber that includes a control orifice that restricts the fluid flowing from one side of the piston to the other and results in a substantially constant damped motion of the piston. The piston drives a rod from the chamber that is attached to a capture device that holds a flange of the spacecraft payload. The capture device moves along a linear guide toward an open end. Spring loaded latches are held in a closed position by the side walls of the guide as the capture device moves. The latches release the flange as exit the open end of the guide.
[0010] A typical embodiment of the invention comprise an apparatus for releasing a payload at a substantially constant velocity including a capture device including one or more latches for holding a flange of the payload and releasing the flange at an end of a linear release path, a linear guide for guiding the capture device along the linear release path, and a damped actuator coupled to the capture device for controlling movement of the capture device and the captured flange of the payload at the substantially constant velocity along the linear release path. The linear guide and the damped actuator may be substantially cylindrical.“).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the linear actuator disclosed in Aston with the latch mechanism taught in the combination of Husain and Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “released a payload at a substantially constant velocity” as taught by Aston’s ABSTRACT :
“Systems and methods for releasing a spacecraft payload at a substantially constant velocity are disclosed. A linear actuator is used that includes a spring loaded and fluid filled chamber. The spring drives against a piston within the chamber that includes a control orifice that restricts the fluid flowing from one side of the piston to the other and results in a substantially constant damped motion of the piston. The piston drives a rod from the chamber that is attached to a capture device that holds a flange of the spacecraft payload. The capture device moves along a linear guide toward an open end. Spring loaded latches are held in a closed position by the side walls of the guide as the capture device moves. The latches release the flange as exit the open end of the guide.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20060050929 A1 to Rast; Rodger H. et al. teaches, inter alia Visual vector display generation of very fast moving elements in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Apparatus, system and method for providing tactical information. One aspect is a system and method for displaying vectors (preferably in real time) for very fast moving (VFM) elements, such as projectiles (e.g., bullets or shells), missiles, and other transient events that arise in a battlefield or civil police action. The system optically and/or acoustically collects information about the ordinance and displays vectors of otherwise unseen ordinance. One aspect is a device for collecting intelligence on and confusing enemy troops, as well as small munition deployment.”.
US 20080121097 A1 to Rudakevych; Pavlo E. et al. teaches, inter alia REMOTE DIGITAL FIRING SYSTEM in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“An apparatus for weaponizing a mobile robotic platform with a mechanically triggered weapon and a firing circuit provides a weaponized mobile robotic platform, in which the mechanically triggered weapon can be fired in a safe, secure, and controlled manner in response to a single electrical pulse from the firing circuit.”.
US 20190066032 A1 to TAVEIRA; Michael Franco et al. teaches, inter alia Rob