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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of the priority document (Application No. PCT/JP2021/046451, filed on 12/16/2021) has been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 02/26/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 6-8, and 13-15 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-15 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 14 and 15 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The objection to Claim 6-8 and 13 is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the applicant’s arguments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the interpretation of Claim 6 (i.e., “sensing means”) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the applicant’s amendments have been considered and found persuasive. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is withdrawn.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "a guide light disposed to define boundaries of a corridor dedicated for exclusive drone flight to be used for forming the corridor used by the drone, and to identify a position of the detected guide light; calculate, according to positions of the drone and the guide light, a predicted arrival position of the drone based on current speed and direction of the drone and a control target position according to a positional relationship between the drone and the guide light, at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image;";
[B.] “Cited references Barr and Masaki, alone and in combination, fail to disclose "detect, from an image captured by a camera mounted in a drone, a guide light disposed to define boundaries of a corridor dedicated for exclusive drone flight to be used for forming the corridor used by the drone, and to identify a position of the detected guide light; calculate, according to positions of the drone and the guide light, a predicted arrival position of the drone based on current speed and direction of the drone and a control target position according to a positional relationship between the drone and the guide light, at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image."”.
Applicant's arguments A. and B. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barr et al. (US 20200388169 A1, henceforth Barr), Saunamaeki (US 2020/0005656 A1) and Kameyama et al. (US 2021/0191429 A1, henceforth Kameyama).
Regarding Claim 1, Barr discloses the limitations: a control device {unmanned aerial system/UAS, Abstract: “The navigation system 510 may include one or more processors”, ¶[0061], and “UAS on-board computer”, ¶[0036]}, comprising: a memory {memory unit, ¶[0061&0113]} storing instructions {¶[0124]}; and a processor {unmanned aerial system/UAS, Abstract: “The navigation system 510 may include one or more processors”, ¶[0061]} connected to the memory and configured to execute the instruction {¶[0123-0124]} to: detect, from an image captured {image capture is a normal part of a UAS (500, Fig. 1) operating procedure: “image processing algorithms may be used to detect a visual signature produced by one or more lines 620.”, ¶[0054]} by a camera mounted in a drone {“the navigation system 510 includes many discrete sensors in the sensor package…ranging sensor, a camera, or other such sensors for gathering environmental data related to the corridor and other UASs operating therein.”, ¶[0047]; 510, Fig. 5}, a guide light {as evident from Fig. 6, UAS 500 will detect beacon 650 when the image processing in ¶[0047] takes place} disposed to define the boundaries of a corridor dedicated for exclusive drone flight {beacon 650 (Fig. 6 and ¶[0057]) establishes a corridor (e.g., dedicated airspace 400, Fig. 4) based on signal strength, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; multiple devices can be used to establish the corridor: “The various sensors comprising the sensor suite that facilitates navigation of the UASs within the corridor may include sensors which are positioned on one or more of the UASs, on corridor infrastructure”, ¶[0077]} to be used for forming a corridor used by the drone {dedicated airspace 400 in Fig. 4 for an unmanned aerial system (UAS) defined in part by guiding elements (such as beacon 650 in Fig. 6) disposed on infrastructure elements, which communicates with navigation 510 to keep the drone within the corridor: “The UAS 500 includes a navigation system 510 which is configured to autonomously navigate the UAS along designated UAS corridors”, ¶[0046], and “Beacons 650 may be used to identify a corridor 600 itself…The beacon may indicate to the navigation system 510 (via a beacon detector) that the UAS 500 is at the corridor junction, such as by being a specific color, transmitting a data signal on a predetermined channel, flashing at a particular frequency, or various other communication methodologies”, ¶[0057]}, and to identify a position of the detected guide light {“Since the magnetic field generated by power transmission is proportional to the amount of current flowing through the line 620, the navigation system 510 may determine a distance from the magnetic sensor to the lines 620”, ¶[0055]}; calculate, according to positions of the drone and the guide light, a predicted arrival position based on current speed and direction of the drone of the drone {with respect to Fig. 6, the virtual line connecting beacons 650 can be considered a center-line position with respect to course/flight correction: “The navigation system 510, upon detection of the power lines, may associate the power lines with an infrastructure corridor 600, and course-correct (if necessary) to follow the one or more lines. In some implementations, the navigation system 510 may localize the UAS 500 based on a size or number of detected lines 620.”, ¶[0054]}, and a control target position according to a positional relationship between the drone and the guide light {navigation system 510 is necessarily constantly computing the flight path, and providing for course-correction relative to a transmission line, 620/630, or the center-line of beacons 650, Fig. 6: “ the navigation system 510 may determine whether the UAS 500 is straying from a transmission line 620 if a sensed magnetic field falls below a certain threshold. In such a case, the navigation system 510 may course-correct the UAS 500 to navigate closer to the transmission lines 620. With some knowledge of the network infrastructure, the UAS may also confirm or determine a position based upon changes in a sensed magnetic field 630 along a power line corridor 600.”, ¶[0056]}, at a control timing subsequent to a timing of capturing the image {one skilled in the art will appreciate that course-correction mentioned ¶[0054] must occur chronologically after an image is captured}; generate a control condition for a motor that drives a propeller of the drone {“ The UAS 500 may include a frame 520 to which one or more lift inducing elements (or propulsion units) are coupled. In the present embodiment, the one or more lift inducing elements includes a motor 530 coupled to one or more propellers 540.”, ¶[0045] and Fig. 5} system according to the predicted arrival position and the control target position; and set the control condition for the motors of the drone {autonomous navigation described in ¶[0046]}.
Barr does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: detect, from an image captured by a camera mounted in a drone, a guide light; and at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image.
However, Saunamaeki explicitly recites the limitation: detect, from an image captured by a camera mounted in a drone {“the drones can detect the lights with their cameras (or other optical sensors) and determine the distance and direction of the light source(s) and based on the data obtained at each drones in a cluster, determine the location of the light source(s) and a landing zone relative to the light source(s).”, ¶[0052]}, a guide light {“The landing zone may be surrounded by a plurality of lights (e.g. LEDs, red-green-blue (RGB) LEDs, incandescent light bulbs, etc.) to create a pattern to indicate to the drones that the landing zone is in the area”, ¶[0128], and landing site light strips 1210 in Fig. 12}.
Barr and Saunamaeki are analogous art because both deal with the navigation of unmanned aerial vehicles and drones within an airspace corridor exclusive to drones.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Barr and Saunamaeki before them, to modify the teachings of Barr to include the teachings of Saunamaeki to enable safe landing of a drone in the case of an emergency {“In the case of an emergency, e.g. GNSS signal lost, the drones may use this system to find a safe path to home, i.e. a predetermined safe landing zone.”, ¶[0051]}.
The combination of Barr and Saunamaeki do not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image.
However, Kameyama explicitly recites limitation: at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image {“Image capturing apparatus 16 of flying object 10 captures a moving image during the flight of flying object 10, or captures a still image at a predetermined timing. This image data is stored in flying object 10 or server apparatus 20”, ¶[0051]}.
The combination of Barr and Saunamaeki along with Kameyama are analogous art since they deal with the navigation of unmanned aerial vehicles and drones.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Barr and Saunamaeki to include the teachings of Kameyama to capture relevant imaging information from a drone while recognizing a drone has limited storage capacity for images on the drone itself {¶[0051]}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Barr explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the control condition for moving the drone from the predicted arrival position toward the control target position {control is described with respect to autonomous navigation in ¶[0046], and course-correction in ¶[0054] and ¶[0056]}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Barr does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect a reference guide light to be referred to in utilization of the corridor according to a light emission color of the guide light, and identify a position of the detected reference guide light .
However, Saunamaeki explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect a reference guide light to be referred to in utilization of the corridor {“The landing zone may be surrounded by a plurality of lights (e.g. LEDs, red-green-blue (RGB) LEDs, incandescent light bulbs, etc.) to create a pattern to indicate to the drones that the landing zone is in the area”, ¶[0128], and landing site light strips 1210 in Fig. 12} according to a light emission color of the guide light, and identify a position of the detected reference guide light {“the drones can detect the lights with their cameras (or other optical sensors) and determine the distance and direction of the light source(s) and based on the data obtained at each drones in a cluster, determine the location of the light source(s) and a landing zone relative to the light source(s).”, ¶[0052]}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. Barr does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect the reference guide light to be referred to in utilization of the corridor according to a plurality of light emission colors at different heights at the guide light , and identify a position of the drone in a height direction in the corridor according to a plurality of light emission colors of the detected reference guide light.
However, Saunamaeki explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect the reference guide light to be referred to in utilization of the corridor according to a plurality of light emission colors at different heights at the guide light {“The landing zone may be surrounded by a plurality of lights (e.g. LEDs, red-green-blue (RGB) LEDs, incandescent light bulbs, etc.) to create a pattern to indicate to the drones that the landing zone is in the area”, ¶[0128], and landing site light strips 1210 in Fig. 12, wherein different lights in the landing strip are different distances due to their horizontal arrangement; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the plurality of lights in strip 1210 could vertically aligned, based on a simple rearrangement-of-parts}, and identify a position of the drone in a height direction in the corridor according to a plurality of light emission colors of the detected reference guide light {“the drones can detect the lights with their cameras (or other optical sensors) and determine the distance and direction of the light source(s) and based on the data obtained at each drones in a cluster, determine the location of the light source(s) and a landing zone relative to the light source(s).”, ¶[0052]}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Barr explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire guidance information including the control condition generated by a management device that manages the corridor {Corridor Operator and Traffic Management System, ¶[0043-0044]: “Infrastructure Corridor UAS Traffic Management System (as discussed in more detail in relation to, for example, FIGS. 10 and 11).”}, and output the control condition included in the guidance information in response to acquisition of the guidance information {“ the UAS may be communicatively coupled to a network infrastructure which facilitates coordination with other UASs within the corridor or network of corridors, and the network infrastructure provides assistance and/or instructions with respect to navigating the UAS corridor (along with other UASs).”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Barr explicitly recites the limitations: a drone {10, Figs. 1A-1B} comprising: the control device according to claim 1 {refer to Claim 1 above}; a motor driven and controlled by the control device; a propeller that rotates in accordance with driving of the motor {“The UAS 500 may include a frame 520 to which one or more lift inducing elements (or propulsion units) are coupled. In the present embodiment, the one or more lift inducing elements includes a motor 530 coupled to one or more propellers 540.”, ¶[0045] and Fig. 5}; a camera that outputs a captured image to the control device {camera, ¶[0047]}; 510, Fig. 5}; a rechargeable battery {“ UASs may share processing power with one another. For example, a first UAS may offload some of its processing calculations to a second UAS if its power supply is low (e.g., fuel is below a predefined threshold, a battery is below a predefined charge, etc.)”, ¶[0068]}; a memory storing instructions {memory unit, ¶[0061 & 0113]}; and a processor connected to the memory {unmanned aerial system/UAS, Abstract: “The navigation system 510 may include one or more processors”, ¶[0061]} and configured to execute the instructions {¶[0124]} to: generate transmission information including identification information and position information about a host drone {“The navigation system 510 may utilize computer vision techniques to identify the number and determine the location of the UAS 500 based upon a stored map that associates the identified tower with a location in space”, ¶[0053], and “Beacons 650 may be used to identify a corridor 600 itself, an intersection within the corridor, a location within the corridor, or otherwise communicate information necessary for safe operation of a UAS within the corridor.”, ¶[0057]}; communicate with a management device that manages a corridor to transmit the transmission information to the management device {Corridor Operator, ¶[0068]}.
Regarding Claim 14, Barr discloses the limitations: a control method {unmanned aerial system/UAS, Abstract; “UAS on-board computer”, ¶[0036]} executed by a computer {unmanned aerial system/UAS, Abstract: “The navigation system 510 may include one or more processors”, ¶[0061]}, the method comprising: detecting, from an image captured {image capture is a normal part of a UAS (500, Fig. 1) operating procedure: “image processing algorithms may be used to detect a visual signature produced by one or more lines 620.”, ¶[0054]} by a camera mounted in a drone {“the navigation system 510 includes many discrete sensors in the sensor package…ranging sensor, a camera, or other such sensors for gathering environmental data related to the corridor and other UASs operating therein.”, ¶[0047]; 510, Fig. 5}, a guide light {as evident from Fig. 6, UAS 500 will detect beacon 650 when the image processing in ¶[0047] takes place} disposed to define the boundaries of a corridor dedicated for exclusive drone flight {beacon 650 (Fig. 6 and ¶[0057]) establishes a corridor (e.g., dedicated airspace 400, Fig. 4) based on signal strength, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; multiple devices can be used to establish the corridor: “The various sensors comprising the sensor suite that facilitates navigation of the UASs within the corridor may include sensors which are positioned on one or more of the UASs, on corridor infrastructure”, ¶[0077]} to be used for forming a corridor used by the drone {dedicated airspace 400 in Fig. 4 for an unmanned aerial system (UAS) defined in part by guiding elements (such as beacon 650 in Fig. 6) disposed on infrastructure elements, which communicates with navigation 510 to keep the drone within the corridor: “The UAS 500 includes a navigation system 510 which is configured to autonomously navigate the UAS along designated UAS corridors”, ¶[0046], and “Beacons 650 may be used to identify a corridor 600 itself…The beacon may indicate to the navigation system 510 (via a beacon detector) that the UAS 500 is at the corridor junction, such as by being a specific color, transmitting a data signal on a predetermined channel, flashing at a particular frequency, or various other communication methodologies”, ¶[0057]}, and to identifying a position of the detected guide light {“Since the magnetic field generated by power transmission is proportional to the amount of current flowing through the line 620, the navigation system 510 may determine a distance from the magnetic sensor to the lines 620”, ¶[0055]}; calculating, according to positions of the drone and the guide light, a predicted arrival position based on current speed and direction of the drone of the drone {with respect to Fig. 6, the virtual line connecting beacons 650 can be considered a center-line position with respect to course/flight correction: “The navigation system 510, upon detection of the power lines, may associate the power lines with an infrastructure corridor 600, and course-correct (if necessary) to follow the one or more lines. In some implementations, the navigation system 510 may localize the UAS 500 based on a size or number of detected lines 620.”, ¶[0054]}, and a control target position according to a positional relationship between the drone and the guide light {navigation system 510 is necessarily constantly computing the flight path, and providing for course-correction relative to a transmission line, 620/630, or the center-line of beacons 650, Fig. 6: “ the navigation system 510 may determine whether the UAS 500 is straying from a transmission line 620 if a sensed magnetic field falls below a certain threshold. In such a case, the navigation system 510 may course-correct the UAS 500 to navigate closer to the transmission lines 620. With some knowledge of the network infrastructure, the UAS may also confirm or determine a position based upon changes in a sensed magnetic field 630 along a power line corridor 600.”, ¶[0056]}, at a control timing subsequent to a timing of capturing the image {one skilled in the art will appreciate that course-correction mentioned ¶[0054] must occur chronologically after an image is captured}; generating a control condition for a motor that drives a propeller of the drone {“ The UAS 500 may include a frame 520 to which one or more lift inducing elements (or propulsion units) are coupled. In the present embodiment, the one or more lift inducing elements includes a motor 530 coupled to one or more propellers 540.”, ¶[0045] and Fig. 5} system according to the predicted arrival position and the control target position; and set the control condition for the motors of the drone {autonomous navigation described in ¶[0046]}.
Barr does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: detecting, from an image captured by a camera mounted in a drone, a guide light; and at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image.
However, Saunamaeki explicitly recites the limitation: detecting, from an image captured by a camera mounted in a drone {“the drones can detect the lights with their cameras (or other optical sensors) and determine the distance and direction of the light source(s) and based on the data obtained at each drones in a cluster, determine the location of the light source(s) and a landing zone relative to the light source(s).”, ¶[0052]}, a guide light {“The landing zone may be surrounded by a plurality of lights (e.g. LEDs, red-green-blue (RGB) LEDs, incandescent light bulbs, etc.) to create a pattern to indicate to the drones that the landing zone is in the area”, ¶[0128], and landing site light strips 1210 in Fig. 12}.
The combination of Barr and Saunamaeki do not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image.
However, Kameyama explicitly recites limitation: at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image {“Image capturing apparatus 16 of flying object 10 captures a moving image during the flight of flying object 10, or captures a still image at a predetermined timing. This image data is stored in flying object 10 or server apparatus 20”, ¶[0051]}.
Regarding Claim 15, Barr discloses the limitations: a non-transitory recording medium storing {memory unit, ¶[0061 & 0113]} a program {¶[0124]} for causing a computer to execute the steps {unmanned aerial system/UAS, Abstract: “The navigation system 510 may include one or more processors”, ¶[0061]} of: detecting, from an image captured {image capture is a normal part of a UAS (500, Fig. 1) operating procedure: “image processing algorithms may be used to detect a visual signature produced by one or more lines 620.”, ¶[0054]} by a camera mounted in a drone {“the navigation system 510 includes many discrete sensors in the sensor package…ranging sensor, a camera, or other such sensors for gathering environmental data related to the corridor and other UASs operating therein.”, ¶[0047]; 510, Fig. 5}, a guide light {as evident from Fig. 6, UAS 500 will detect beacon 650 when the image processing in ¶[0047] takes place} disposed to define the boundaries of a corridor dedicated for exclusive drone flight {beacon 650 (Fig. 6 and ¶[0057]) establishes a corridor (e.g., dedicated airspace 400, Fig. 4) based on signal strength, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; multiple devices can be used to establish the corridor: “The various sensors comprising the sensor suite that facilitates navigation of the UASs within the corridor may include sensors which are positioned on one or more of the UASs, on corridor infrastructure”, ¶[0077]} to be used for forming a corridor used by the drone {dedicated airspace 400 in Fig. 4 for an unmanned aerial system (UAS) defined in part by guiding elements (such as beacon 650 in Fig. 6) disposed on infrastructure elements, which communicates with navigation 510 to keep the drone within the corridor: “The UAS 500 includes a navigation system 510 which is configured to autonomously navigate the UAS along designated UAS corridors”, ¶[0046], and “Beacons 650 may be used to identify a corridor 600 itself…The beacon may indicate to the navigation system 510 (via a beacon detector) that the UAS 500 is at the corridor junction, such as by being a specific color, transmitting a data signal on a predetermined channel, flashing at a particular frequency, or various other communication methodologies”, ¶[0057]}, and to identifying a position of the detected guide light {“Since the magnetic field generated by power transmission is proportional to the amount of current flowing through the line 620, the navigation system 510 may determine a distance from the magnetic sensor to the lines 620”, ¶[0055]}; calculating, according to positions of the drone and the guide light, a predicted arrival position based on current speed and direction of the drone of the drone {with respect to Fig. 6, the virtual line connecting beacons 650 can be considered a center-line position with respect to course/flight correction: “The navigation system 510, upon detection of the power lines, may associate the power lines with an infrastructure corridor 600, and course-correct (if necessary) to follow the one or more lines. In some implementations, the navigation system 510 may localize the UAS 500 based on a size or number of detected lines 620.”, ¶[0054]}, and a control target position according to a positional relationship between the drone and the guide light {navigation system 510 is necessarily constantly computing the flight path, and providing for course-correction relative to a transmission line, 620/630, or the center-line of beacons 650, Fig. 6: “ the navigation system 510 may determine whether the UAS 500 is straying from a transmission line 620 if a sensed magnetic field falls below a certain threshold. In such a case, the navigation system 510 may course-correct the UAS 500 to navigate closer to the transmission lines 620. With some knowledge of the network infrastructure, the UAS may also confirm or determine a position based upon changes in a sensed magnetic field 630 along a power line corridor 600.”, ¶[0056]}, at a control timing subsequent to a timing of capturing the image {one skilled in the art will appreciate that course-correction mentioned ¶[0054] must occur chronologically after an image is captured}; generating a control condition for a motor that drives a propeller of the drone {“ The UAS 500 may include a frame 520 to which one or more lift inducing elements (or propulsion units) are coupled. In the present embodiment, the one or more lift inducing elements includes a motor 530 coupled to one or more propellers 540.”, ¶[0045] and Fig. 5} system according to the predicted arrival position and the control target position; and set the control condition for the motors of the drone {autonomous navigation described in ¶[0046]}.
Barr does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: detecting, from an image captured by a camera mounted in a drone, a guide light; and at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image.
However, Saunamaeki explicitly recites the limitation: detecting, from an image captured by a camera mounted in a drone {“the drones can detect the lights with their cameras (or other optical sensors) and determine the distance and direction of the light source(s) and based on the data obtained at each drones in a cluster, determine the location of the light source(s) and a landing zone relative to the light source(s).”, ¶[0052]}, a guide light {“The landing zone may be surrounded by a plurality of lights (e.g. LEDs, red-green-blue (RGB) LEDs, incandescent light bulbs, etc.) to create a pattern to indicate to the drones that the landing zone is in the area”, ¶[0128], and landing site light strips 1210 in Fig. 12}.
The combination of Barr and Saunamaeki do not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image.
However, Kameyama explicitly recites limitation: at a control timing set at predetermined time intervals for safe autonomous navigation subsequent to a timing of capturing the image {“Image capturing apparatus 16 of flying object 10 captures a moving image during the flight of flying object 10, or captures a still image at a predetermined timing. This image data is stored in flying object 10 or server apparatus 20”, ¶[0051]}.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki, Kameyama and Sabato (US 11,373,542 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the control condition for controlling the motor in such a way that the drone moves away from the reference guide light in a case where a distance between the reference guide light and the drone is smaller than a minimum designated distance set for the reference guide light, and generate the control condition for controlling the motor in such a way that the drone approaches the reference guide light in a case where the distance between the reference guide light and the drone is larger than a maximum designated distance set for the reference guide light.
However, Sabato explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the control condition for controlling the motor in such a way that the drone moves away from the reference guide light in a case where a distance between the reference guide light and the drone is smaller than a minimum designated distance set for the reference guide light, and generate the control condition for controlling the motor in such a way that the drone approaches the reference guide light in a case where the distance between the reference guide light and the drone is larger than a maximum designated distance set for the reference guide light {Fig. 5c, reflects a drone receiving a signal and deciding, based on the nature of the signal, to move closer to or away from the signal: “At block 530 c, the UAV determines (e.g. with the help of an APS processing unit 440) whether the sensed signal complies with one or more predefined conditions…which can be indicative of the distance between the UAV and the emitter…If the measurable parameter of the sensed proximity signal complies with a condition indicative of a distance that is shorter than a certain predefined threshold (e.g. signal power above a certain value) value, the UAV is configured (e.g. by on-board APS) to generate instructions for causing the UAV to increase the distance from the emitter (block 540 c). If the measurable parameter of the sensed proximity signal complies with a condition indicative of a distance that is greater than a certain predefined threshold (e.g. signal power below a certain value) value, the UAV is configured (e.g. by on-board APS) to generate instructions causing the UAV to decrease the distance from the emitter (block 550 c).”, Col.17, Ln. 46 to Col. 18, Ln. 2}.
The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama along with Sabato are analogous art because they all deal with controlling a drone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Barr, Saunamaeki, Kameyama and Sabato before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama to include the teachings of Sabato to provide a drone corridor for multiple drone {“a plurality of the emitters can be positioned each on a respective static structure located along a course or path, where the proximity signals serve to create a continuous and confined corridor assigned for the UAV to travel. Each UAV flying through the corridor can also operate as an emitter, thus enabling a plurality of UAVs to fly through the corridor in a densely packed formation without disrupting each other.”, Col. 13, Lns. 39-46}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire position information about a second drone that uses the corridor, calculate a distance between the second drone and the drone, and set the control target position in a direction in which is away from the second drone in a case where the distance between the second drone and the drone is less than a predetermined distance.
However, Sabato explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire position information about a second drone that uses the corridor, calculate a distance between the second drone and the drone {“Each UAV flying through the corridor can also operate as an emitter, thus enabling a plurality of UAVs to fly through the corridor in a densely packed formation without disrupting each other.”, Col. 13, Lns. 43-46}, and set the control target position in a direction in which is away from the second drone in a case where the distance between the second drone and the drone is less than a predetermined distance {“generate maneuvering instructions dedicated for causing the UxV to move and increase the distance between the UxV and the respective emitter; and then generate maneuvering instructions dedicated for causing the UxV to move and decrease the distance between the UxV and the respective emitter; and thereby maintain the UxV within a certain range from the respective emitter defined by the sensed proximity signal.”, Abstract}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki, Kameyama and Zuckerman (US 11,565,807 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to monitor an amount of charge of a rechargeable battery mounted on the drone, output a charge standby signal to the sensing means when an amount of charge of the rechargeable battery falls below a reference value, detect, from the image captured by the camera, a charging station capable of charging the rechargeable battery according to the charge standby signal, and identifies a position of the detected charging station, and calculate the position of the charging station as the control target position.
However, Zuckerman explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the processor {5-cpu, Fig. 1A} is configured to execute the instructions to monitor an amount of charge of a rechargeable battery {battery 4-btr, Fig. 1A} mounted on the drone {10, Fig. 1A}, output a charge standby signal to the sensing means when an amount of charge of the rechargeable battery falls below a reference value, detect, from the image captured by the camera {drone 10 in Fig. 1A has 6 cameras (4-cam)}, a charging station capable of charging the rechargeable battery according to the charge standby signal, and identifies a position of the detected charging station, and calculate the position of the charging station as the control target position {Col. 26, Lns. 3-29, with respect to Fig. 1P, described a drone 10 detecting a low battery condition (“the first detachable battery 10-battery-1 is about to be depleted and therefore needs a replacement”) and flying to a location where it can pick-up a replacement battery (“The station 9-station includes a second detachable battery 10-battery-2, located perhaps in conjunction with a second docking element/location 9-loc-2 in the station, in which the second detachable battery 10-battery-2 is charged and waiting to be picked up by the drone 10.”); one skilled in the art will appreciate that reaching the charging station to retrieve a new battery involves detection of the charging station location and flight calculations to guide the drone to the exact location to the charging station}.
The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama along with Zuckerman are analogous art because they all deal with drone flight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Barr, Saunamaeki and Zuckerman before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Barr and Saunamaeki to include the teachings of Zuckerman to safely guide a drone along a drone corridor {“Control position of the drone so as to remain within the flight corridor”, 1205, Fig. 1-O, wherein the corridor may include object the drone needs to avoid, Fig. 1-X, such as a tree}.
Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki, Kameyama and Campos Macias et al. (US 10,957,209 B2, henceforth Campos Macias).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Barr explicitly recites the limitation: calculate a positional relationship with the guide light using the acquired sound wave signal {calculation of distance between drone 500 and beacon 650, Fig. 6, based on sensor data: “Since the magnetic field generated by power transmission is proportional to the amount of current flowing through the line 620, the navigation system 510 may determine a distance from the magnetic sensor to the lines 620”, ¶[0055]; see also ¶[0057]}.
The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the guide light has a directional speaker, and the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire a sound wave signal related to a sound wave emitted from the directional speaker of the guide light.
However, Campos Macias explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the guide light has a directional speaker, and the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire a sound wave signal related to a sound wave emitted from the directional speaker of the guide light {drone-to-drone communication via acoustic sensor and transmitters located on each drone: “the first drone 102 of FIG. 1 includes a first acoustic transmitter and a first array of acoustic sensors, and the second drone 104 of FIG. 1 includes a second acoustic transmitter and a second array of acoustic sensors.”, Col. 5, Lns. 47-50, wherein one drone on the ground communication with another drone on the ground is comparable to ground-based acoustic transmitter communicating with a drone in the air}.
The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama along with Campos Macias are analogous art because they all deal with drone navigation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Barr, Saunamaeki, Kameyama and Campos Macias before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama to include the teachings of Campos Macias to provide excellent communication within a drone highway airspace to prevent collisions {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki, Kameyama and Campos Macias discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Barr explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a distance to the guide light according to a frequency of the acquired sound wave signal {calculation of distance between drone 500 and beacon 650, Fig. 6, based on sensor data: “Since the magnetic field generated by power transmission is proportional to the amount of current flowing through the line 620, the navigation system 510 may determine a distance from the magnetic sensor to the lines 620”, ¶[0055]; see also ¶[0057]}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki, Kameyama and Campos Macias discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a distance to the guide light according to sound intensity of the acquired sound wave signal {calculation of distance between drone 500 and beacon 650, Fig. 6, based on sensor data: “Since the magnetic field generated by power transmission is proportional to the amount of current flowing through the line 620, the navigation system 510 may determine a distance from the magnetic sensor to the lines 620”, ¶[0055]; see also ¶[0057]}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Barr explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising a microphone {“the sensor package of the navigation system 110 may include a magnetic field sensor, an electric field sensor, global positioning system (GPS) receiver, an infrared (IR) sensor, a thermal sensor, radar, an electro-optical sensor, an auditory sensor”, ¶[0047]}
The combination of Barr, Saunamaeki and Kameyama does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the guide light has a directional speaker, and the microphone receives a sound wave emitted from the guide light used for forming the corridor.
However, Campos Macias explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the guide light has a directional speaker, and the microphone receives a sound wave emitted from the guide light used for forming the corridor {drone-to-drone communication via acoustic sensor and transmitters located on each drone: “the first drone 102 of FIG. 1 includes a first acoustic transmitter and a first array of acoustic sensors, and the second drone 104 of FIG. 1 includes a second acoustic transmitter and a second array of acoustic sensors.”, Col. 5, Lns. 47-50, wherein one drone sitting on the ground communicating with another drone in the air is comparable to a ground-based acoustic transmitter communicating with a drone in the air}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11,250,710 B2 - Discloses a system and method to enable a drone to safely ascend and descent to-and-from a drone corridor, through the use of on-board airspace sensors and ground-based airspace monitors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights