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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 7, 2024. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are presently pending are presented for examination. Claim 5 is canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ang (CN 102166930 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ang teaches a land-and-air mobile device (flying car; Abstract) comprising:
an environment information acquirer configured to acquire environment information (identify road environment, obstacle and obstacle distance to the road traffic information…; see at least [0007]);
a ground travel executor configured to execute ground travel (driven driving wheel; [0011] and Fig. 3a);
an air travel executor configured to execute air travel (power device comprises a ducted propeller and one motor for driving its operation; [0011] and Fig. 3b); and
a controller, wherein the controller comprises:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors, and
the one or more processors are configured to execute a process (the automatic control device comprises microprocessor…; see at least [0008]) comprising:
selecting, based on the environment information, a ground travel state in which the ground travel is executed or an air travel state in which the air travel is executed (when calculating the object is away from the vehicle speed, vehicle distance and closer automatic takeoff; see at least [0020]-[0021]); and
changing a priority order for information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor in accordance with whether the ground travel state or the air travel state is selected (the flight distance and the speed of calculating the front obstacle through image analysis and laser distance measuring car can be judged automatically raised flight; see at least [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Ang teaches the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 1. Additionally, Ang teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a process of changing the priority order for the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor, in units of frames (image identifying module…extracting reference histogram for each frame image; see at least [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Ang teaches the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 10. Additionally, Ang teaches wherein the ground travel executor comprises a power-unit bus and a chassis bus, and the air travel executor comprises a motor bus and a three-steering bus, and the one or more processors are configured to execute a process of changing the priority order for the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor, in units of buses comprising the power-unit bus, the chassis bus, the motor bus, and the three-steering bus (the output end of each electronic speed regulator connected with a motor to control the rotating speed of the motor; the input end of the four steering engines are connected with the comprehensive control system, each steering through fixing connected with a ducted airscrew rotating shaft to control the angle of the ducted propeller; see at least [0005] and [0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang (CN 102166930 A) in view of Omotegawa (JP 2018099973 A).
Regarding claim 2, Ang teaches the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 1. However, Ang does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor via CAN communication.
Omotegawa teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor via CAN communication (The communication unit performs wireless communication with a communication terminal; [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the device of Ang in view of Omotegawa in order to transmit signals for maintaining control of the remote device (see at least Omotegawa [0005] and [0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Ang teaches the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 1. However, Ang does not teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to, when an obstacle in surroundings in a horizontal direction of the land-and-air mobile device is detected in the ground travel state based on the environment information and a probability of collision between the land-and-air mobile device and the obstacle in the surroundings in the horizontal direction is equal to or higher than a predetermined probability, execute a process of changing the priority order for the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor from a priority order based on the ground travel state to a priority order based on the air travel state and shift the land-and-air mobile device from the ground travel state to the air travel state.
Omotegawa teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to, when an obstacle in surroundings in a horizontal direction of the land-and-air mobile device is detected in the ground travel state based on the environment information and a probability of collision between the land-and-air mobile device and the obstacle in the surroundings in the horizontal direction is equal to or higher than a predetermined probability (The obstacle detection sensor is provided to prevent the flying device-equipped bicycle 100 from colliding with an obstacle when taking off, flying, or landing; see at least [0017]), execute a process of changing the priority order for the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor from a priority order based on the ground travel state to a priority order based on the air travel state and shift the land-and-air mobile device from the ground travel state to the air travel state (see at least [0030] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the device of Ang in view of Omotegawa in order to detect obstacles in both ground and air travel states and adjust control of the device as the system identifies obstacles from the environment information acquirer (see at least Ang – Abstract and Omotegawa [0029]-[0030])
Regarding claim 7, Ang teaches the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 1. Additionally, Ang teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to,
maintain, when the environment information indicates that a predetermined landing condition is not satisfied in the air travel state, the land-and-air mobile device in the air travel state (analysis to obtain the road condition information transmitted to the integrated control system. image recognition module using image feature extraction, perspective geometry analysis judging barrier characteristics, distance and speed so as to obtain the road condition information and sends it to the integrated control system; [0013]).
However, Ang does not teach the processors are configured to execute, when the environment information indicates that the predetermined landing condition is satisfied, a process of changing the priority order for the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor from a priority order based on the air travel state to a priority order based on the ground travel state and shift the land-and-air mobile device from the air travel state to the ground travel state.
Omotegawa teaches the processors are configured to execute, when the environment information indicates that the predetermined landing condition is satisfied, a process of changing the priority order for the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor from a priority order based on the air travel state to a priority order based on the ground travel state and shift the land-and-air mobile device from the air travel state to the ground travel state (On the other hand, when the control unit 41 determines that the aircraft has arrived at the designated location S103, the control unit 41 shifts the process to S104, executes landing control; see at least [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the device of Ang in view of Omotegawa in order for the device to detect obstacles and have the control unit operate the landing sequence given the predetermined landing condition is satisfied (see Omotegawa [0029]-[0030]).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang (CN 102166930 A) in view of Haga (US 20190068407 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ang teaches the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 3. However, Ang does not teach wherein the ground travel executor and the air travel executor each comprise an ECU configured to perform the information transmission with the one or more processors via CAN communication, and a frame type of a frame to be processed by the ECU is associated with a different CAN ID in accordance with whether the frame type is for the ground travel state or the air travel state.
Haga teaches wherein the ground travel executor and the air travel executor each comprise an ECU configured to perform the information transmission with the one or more processors via CAN communication, and a frame type of a frame to be processed by the ECU is associated with a different CAN ID in accordance with whether the frame type is for the ground travel state or the air travel state (CAN-IDs of CAN frames and destinations are defined for each bus (CAN bus) as the reference information, data regarding a CAN frame can be appropriately transmitted to any E-ECU even if there are a plurality of buses; see at least [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the device of Ang in view of Haga in order to identify the frame type to determine travel state and communicate the data via CAN communication, with frames being associated with CAN IDs (see at least Haga [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Ang teaches the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 4. However, Ang does not teach wherein frame types of frames including the frame to be processed by an ECU are associated with CAN IDs having priorities such that in the ground travel state, the priorities in descending order are a frame type used for control to change a movement direction of the land-and-air mobile device, a frame type used for braking the land-and-air mobile device, and a frame type used for controlling travel of the land-and-air mobile device, and in the air travel state, the priorities in descending order are a frame type used for control to maintain a levitation state of the land-and-air mobile device, a frame type used for control to change a movement direction of the land-and-air mobile device, and a frame type used for braking the land- and-air mobile device.
Haga teaches wherein frame types of frames including the frame to be processed by an ECU are associated with CAN IDs having priorities such that in the ground travel state (the processor may also refer to reference information in which a plurality of destinations is associated with CAN-IDs; see at least [0027]), the priorities in descending order are a frame type used for control to change a movement direction of the land-and-air mobile device, a frame type used for braking the land-and-air mobile device (The C-ECUs 500a to 500d communicate frames in accordance with the CAN protocol. The C-ECUs 500a to 500d are connected to the engine 600a, the brake 600b; [0050]), and a frame type used for controlling travel of the land-and-air mobile device, and in the air travel state, the priorities in descending order are a frame type used for control to maintain a levitation state of the land-and-air mobile device, a frame type used for control to change a movement direction of the land-and-air mobile device, and a frame type used for braking the land- and-air mobile device (If CAN-IDs of CAN frames relating to the driving control of the vehicle such as driving, turning, and stopping are set as particular IDs in addition to the error notification ID, E-ECUs can promptly display information relating to the driving control, and safe driving of the vehicle can be effectively achieved; see at least [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the device of Ang in view of Haga in order to identify the frame type and prioritize the order of frame types, with frames types being associated with CAN IDs (see at least Haga [0075]).
Regarding claim 10, Ang teaches the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 1. However, Ang does not teach wherein the ground travel executor and the air travel executor each comprise multiple ECUs configured to perform the information transmission with the one or more processors via CAN communication, and buses configured to couple the one or more processors to the ECUs,
the buses are associated with CAN IDs indicating priorities,
the one or more processors are configured to assign a CAN ID to a frame to be transmitted to any one of the ECUs as a transmission destination and transmit the frame to an ECU as the transmission destination, the CAN ID corresponding to a bus of the buses to which the ECU as the transmission destination is coupled, and
the bus is associated with a different CAN ID in accordance with whether the bus is for the ground travel state or the air travel state.
Haga teaches wherein the ground travel executor and the air travel executor each comprise multiple ECUs configured to perform the information transmission with the one or more processors via CAN communication, and buses configured to couple the one or more processors to the ECUs (the processor may also refer to reference information in which a plurality of destinations is associated with CAN-IDs…plurality of E-ECUs of the same type; see at least [0027]),
the buses are associated with CAN IDs indicating priorities (The transfer control unit 140 then compares the bus with sources in the priority transfer list and a CAN-ID of the CAN frame with CAN-IDs having priority in transfer in the priority transfer list; see at least [0077]),
the one or more processors are configured to assign a CAN ID to a frame to be transmitted to any one of the ECUs as a transmission destination and transmit the frame to an ECU as the transmission destination, the CAN ID corresponding to a bus of the buses to which the ECU as the transmission destination is coupled (whether the CAN-ID of the CAN frame is to be transferred to the second CAN bus; [0085]), and
the bus is associated with a different CAN ID in accordance with whether the bus is for the ground travel state or the air travel state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the device of Ang in view of Haga in order to have the travel executors communicating via CAN communication protocols and transmitting data to corresponding buses (see Abstract - Haga).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
NPL Document “Deep Learning Serves Traffic Safety Analysis: A Forward-looking Review” which relates to object detection and classification, trajectory extraction, speed estimation, and event analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRICK K LY whose telephone number is (571)272-5831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-16:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
KENDRICK KHOIKHOA. LY
Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/KENDRICK K LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights