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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the claim limitation “wherein the UAV comprises a first UAV and a second UAV” in claim 17, and therefore, does not comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 and the dependent claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “UAV comprises a first UAV and a second UAV” is being interpreted as one UAV with a first motor with controls as the “first UAV” and a second motor with controls as the “second UAV”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. (US 11562654 B2) in view of KA et al. (US 20240429840 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Krawiec teaches:
A method comprising:
causing an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) to navigate through a trajectory;
(Krawiec – At [8:28-33] it states “In one embodiment of the inventive concepts disclosed herein, the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 may include a flight director 182 onboard the VTOL aircraft operatively coupled with a damage tolerant autopilot 180 for automatic control along an ELPG 150 paths.”)
receiving first motor data representing operation of a first motor during navigation through the trajectory
(Krawiec – At [2:26-32] it states “The system may also receive, from the vehicle health module, the engine performance input including one of: a normal thrust state, a reduced thrust state, and a zero-thrust state and receive, from the vehicle health module, the aircraft performance input including a normal control status, a partial control status, and a battle damage control status.”)
determining a motor failure state; and
(Krawiec – At [7:18-28] it states “The vehicle health module 132 may monitor aircraft components including, for example, engine, rotor, actuators, and hydraulics. And may utilize a variety of methods (sensor detection, Bayesian probabilistic reasoning, etc.) to assess a capability and health of the VTOL aircraft. From these inputs, the vehicle health module 132 may determine if an emergency landing should be performed. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, detection of engine failure causing the controller 120 to command autorotation, and detection of actuation failure causing the controller 120 to perform actuator reconfiguration.”)
causing the UAV to navigate based on the motor failure state.
(Krawiec – At [3:66-4:8] it states “The method may further include receiving an immediate landing request from one of: an operator onboard the VTOL aircraft and the vehicle health module and commanding a damage tolerant autopilot, upon response of the immediate landing request, to employ a plurality of failure based control inputs to maneuver the VTOL aircraft using an all axis closed loop control from the start point to the touchdown point via the path, the plurality of failure based control inputs based on the engine performance input and the aircraft performance input.”)
Krawiec teaches a UAV navigating through a trajectory and navigating differently when a motor failure state is determined. However, Krawiec does not teach receiving second motor data representing operation of a second motor during navigation, and comparing the first motor data with the second motor data.
KA teaches:
receiving first motor data representing operation of a first motor during navigation through the trajectory and receiving second motor data representing operation of a second motor during navigation through the trajectory;
(KA – Fig. 2, see below, element S21)
PNG
media_image1.png
620
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comparing the first motor data with the second motor data;
(KA – Fig. 2, see above, element S23. Paragraph [0023] states “a safety controller configured to compare a threshold with a difference between the first motor value and the second motor value to provide an operation signal to the motor driver to continue or stop operation of the motor.”)
based on the comparison of the first motor data and the second motor data, determining a motor failure state; and
(KA – Fig. 2, see above, element S23 and S25. Paragraph [0160] states “This is because even if the difference between the first motor sensed value and the second motor sensed value is within the threshold, both sensed values may be viewed as having an error or the motor 4100 or other components may be viewed as having an error.”)
Krawiec and KA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec with KA. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations with detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors because using internal metrics allows for the system to determine a failure without the need of outside sources to compare and is therefore more efficient of a system.
Regarding claim 2,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Krawiec further teaches:
further comprises: receiving an indication of at least one motor anomaly, wherein the UAV is caused to navigate through the trajectory in response to receiving the indication.
(Krawiec – At [2:26-32] it states “The system may also receive, from the vehicle health module, the engine performance input including one of: a normal thrust state, a reduced thrust state, and a zero-thrust state and receive, from the vehicle health module, the aircraft performance input including a normal control status, a partial control status, and a battle damage control status.” At [10:59-64] it further states “In cases where powered flight may be feasible, the ELPG 150 may plan aggressive minimal time-to-land autoland trajectories while in cases with degraded vehicle state or engine failure present, the ELPG 150 may generate kinematically feasible autorotation paths.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Krawiec further teaches:
wherein the trajectory is a predetermined trajectory, wherein causing the UAV to navigate through the predetermined trajectory comprises driving each of the first motor and the second motor with a control signal having a predetermined profile.
(Krawiec – At [10:65-11:2] it states “In embodiments, the ELPG 150 may generate paths for additional failure modes such as a reduced power operation (e.g., single engine failure in a dual engine VTOL aircraft) resulting in a suite of potential paths for the VTOL aircraft to follow depending on the health state of the VTOL aircraft.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Krawiec further teaches:
the trajectory is a predetermined trajectory,
(Krawiec – At [10:65-11:2] it states “In embodiments, the ELPG 150 may generate paths for additional failure modes such as a reduced power operation (e.g., single engine failure in a dual engine VTOL aircraft) resulting in a suite of potential paths for the VTOL aircraft to follow depending on the health state of the VTOL aircraft.”)
causing the UAV to navigate based on the motor failure state comprises causing the UAV to navigate to perform a contingency operation based on the first motor data
(Krawiec – At [3:66-4:8] it states “The method may further include receiving an immediate landing request from one of: an operator onboard the VTOL aircraft and the vehicle health module and commanding a damage tolerant autopilot, upon response of the immediate landing request, to employ a plurality of failure based control inputs to maneuver the VTOL aircraft using an all axis closed loop control from the start point to the touchdown point via the path, the plurality of failure based control inputs based on the engine performance input and the aircraft performance input.”)
Krawiec teaches a UAV navigating through a trajectory and navigating differently when a motor failure state is determined. However, Krawiec does not teach determining the motor failure state comprises determining that the first motor data does not exhibit at least a threshold extent of similarity to the second motor data.
KA teaches:
navigating through the predetermined trajectory is associated with expected performance of the first motor being similar to expected performance of the second motor when navigating through the predetermined trajectory,
determining the motor failure state comprises determining that the first motor data does not exhibit at least a threshold extent of similarity to the second motor data,
(KA – Fig. 2, see above, element S23. Paragraph [0023] states “a safety controller configured to compare a threshold with a difference between the first motor value and the second motor value to provide an operation signal to the motor driver to continue or stop operation of the motor.”)
causing the UAV to navigate based on the motor failure state comprises causing the UAV to navigate based on determining that the first motor data does not exhibit at least the threshold extent of similarity to the second motor data.
(KA – Fig. 2, see above, element S25. Paragraph [0023] states “a safety controller configured to compare a threshold with a difference between the first motor value and the second motor value to provide an operation signal to the motor driver to continue or stop operation of the motor.”)
Krawiec and KA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec with KA. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations with detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors because using internal metrics allows for the system to determine a failure without the need of outside sources to compare and is therefore more efficient of a system.
Regarding claim 5,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Krawiec further teaches:
wherein: the trajectory is a predetermined trajectory,
(Krawiec – At [10:65-11:2] it states “In embodiments, the ELPG 150 may generate paths for additional failure modes such as a reduced power operation (e.g., single engine failure in a dual engine VTOL aircraft) resulting in a suite of potential paths for the VTOL aircraft to follow depending on the health state of the VTOL aircraft.”)
causing the UAV to navigate based on the motor failure state comprises causing the UAV to navigate to perform a contingency operation based on the motor failure state
(Krawiec – At [3:66-4:8] it states “The method may further include receiving an immediate landing request from one of: an operator onboard the VTOL aircraft and the vehicle health module and commanding a damage tolerant autopilot, upon response of the immediate landing request, to employ a plurality of failure based control inputs to maneuver the VTOL aircraft using an all axis closed loop control from the start point to the touchdown point via the path, the plurality of failure based control inputs based on the engine performance input and the aircraft performance input.”)
Krawiec teaches a UAV navigating through a trajectory and navigating differently when a motor failure state is determined. However, Krawiec does not teach motor failure state indicating that the first motor data does not differ from the second motor data by at least the threshold difference value.
KA teaches:
navigating through the predetermined trajectory is associated with expected performance of the first motor being different from expected performance of the second motor when navigating through the predetermined trajectory,
(KA – Fig. 2, see above, element S23. Paragraph [0023] states “a safety controller configured to compare a threshold with a difference between the first motor value and the second motor value to provide an operation signal to the motor driver to continue or stop operation of the motor.”)
determining the motor failure state comprises determining that the first motor data does not differ from the second motor data by at least a threshold difference value,
(KA – Paragraph [0011] states “Based on the difference between the first motor value and the second motor value being within the threshold, the operation ongoing signal may be transmitted to the motor driver. Based on the difference between the first motor value and the second motor value being beyond the threshold, the operation stop signal may be transmitted to the motor driver.”)
causing the UAV to navigate based on the motor failure state comprises causing the UAV to navigate based on the motor failure state indicating that the first motor data does not differ from the second motor data by at least the threshold difference value.
(KA – Fig. 2, see above, element S25. Paragraph [0023] states “a safety controller configured to compare a threshold with a difference between the first motor value and the second motor value to provide an operation signal to the motor driver to continue or stop operation of the motor.”)
Krawiec and KA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec with KA. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations with detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors because using internal metrics allows for the system to determine a failure without the need of outside sources to compare and is therefore more efficient of a system.
Regarding claim 12,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Krawiec further teaches:
wherein the motor failure state indicates that at least one of the first motor or the second motor has failed, wherein causing the UAV to navigate based on the motor failure state comprises navigating the UAV to a landing location.
(Krawiec – At [16:21-31] it states “The method may include, at a step 622, receiving an immediate landing request from one of: an operator onboard the VTOL aircraft and the vehicle health module, and at a step 624, commanding a damage tolerant autopilot, upon response of the immediate landing request, to employ a plurality of failure based control inputs to maneuver the VTOL aircraft using an all axis closed loop control from the start point to the touchdown point via the at least one path, the plurality of failure based control inputs based on the at least one engine performance input and the at least one aircraft performance input.”)
Regarding claim 18, it recites a system with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, it recites a non-transitory computer readable medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis. In addition, Krawiec teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions executable by one or more processors to perform operations (At [2:12-17] it states “non-transitory memory onboard the VTOL aircraft and configured to communicate with the controller, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored therein that, in response to execution by the controller, cause the controller to carry out each function of the systems herein.”)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. (US 11562654 B2) in view of KA et al. (US 20240429840 A1) and further in view of Gentry (US 9944404 B1).
Regarding claim 7,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
KA further teaches:
further comprising: receiving first motor data representing operation of the first motor ; and
receiving second motor data representing operation of the second motor , wherein determining the motor failure state is further based on the first motor data and the second motor data.
(KA – Paragraph [0008] states “To achieve these objects and other advantages and in accordance with the purpose of the disclosure, as embodied and broadly described herein, a motor safety control method for a robot may include receiving a first motor value from a high-resolution sensor of a motor, receiving a second motor value from a low-resolution sensor of the motor, and comparing a threshold with a difference between the first motor value and the second motor value, and transmitting an operation signal to a motor driver for the motor to continue or stop operation of the motor.”)
KA teaches the use of motor data from a first and second motor to determine the failure state. However, KA does not teach the use of historical motor data representing operation of the first motor during past trajectories; and receiving second historical motor data representing operation of the second motor during past trajectories.
Gentry teaches:
further comprising: receiving first historical motor data representing operation of the first motor during past trajectories; and
receiving second historical motor data representing operation of the second motor during past trajectories, wherein determining the motor failure state is further based on the first historical motor data and the second historical motor data.
(Gentry – At [16:21-27] it states “At 908, the prognostic system processes the sensor data associated with the diagnostic checks. The sensor data processing at 908 may correspond to the sensor data processing at 806. In various examples, a failure condition may be identified by comparing the processed sensor data at 908 to historical trends of the same UAV or a fleet of similar UAVs.” At [17:14-20] it further states “wherein determining the sensor data indicates the likelihood of the failure condition further comprises comparing at least the sensor data to trend data, and wherein the trend data includes historical sensor data from at least one of the UAV, a second UAV, or a fleet of UAVs during normal operating conditions”)
Krawiec, KA and Gentry are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of failure detection system and safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec and KA with Gentry. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations and detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors with the use of historical data because using previously known metrics allows for the system to determine a failure by comparison and is more efficient than a new determination.
Regarding claim 8,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 7.
KA further teaches:
wherein determining the motor failure state comprises: comparing the first motor data and the second motor data; and
determining the motor failure state based on whether the comparison of the first motor data with the second motor data differs by more than a threshold extent
(KA – Paragraph [0008] states “To achieve these objects and other advantages and in accordance with the purpose of the disclosure, as embodied and broadly described herein, a motor safety control method for a robot may include receiving a first motor value from a high-resolution sensor of a motor, receiving a second motor value from a low-resolution sensor of the motor, and comparing a threshold with a difference between the first motor value and the second motor value, and transmitting an operation signal to a motor driver for the motor to continue or stop operation of the motor.”)
KA teaches the use of motor data from a first and second motor to determine the failure state. However, KA does not teach the use of historical motor data.
Gentry teaches:
wherein determining the motor failure state comprises: comparing the first historical motor data and the second historical motor data; and
determining the motor failure state based on whether the comparison of the first motor data with the second motor data differs by more than a threshold extent from the comparison of the first motor historical data and the second historical motor data.
(Gentry – At [16:21-27] it states “At 908, the prognostic system processes the sensor data associated with the diagnostic checks. The sensor data processing at 908 may correspond to the sensor data processing at 806. In various examples, a failure condition may be identified by comparing the processed sensor data at 908 to historical trends of the same UAV or a fleet of similar UAVs.” At [17:14-20] it further states “wherein determining the sensor data indicates the likelihood of the failure condition further comprises comparing at least the sensor data to trend data, and wherein the trend data includes historical sensor data from at least one of the UAV, a second UAV, or a fleet of UAVs during normal operating conditions”)
Krawiec, KA and Gentry are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of failure detection system and safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec and KA with Gentry. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations and detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors with the use of historical data because using previously known metrics allows for the system to determine a failure by comparison and is more efficient than a new determination.
Claim(s) 9, 13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. (US 11562654 B2) in view of KA et al. (US 20240429840 A1) and further in view of LAN et al. (US 20190207543 A1).
Regarding claim 9,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
KA further teaches:
wherein the first motor data represents a first motorand the second motor data represents a second motor wherein comparing the first motor data with the second motor data , wherein determining the motor failure state comprises determining that the first motor has failed.
(KA – Paragraph [0008] states “To achieve these objects and other advantages and in accordance with the purpose of the disclosure, as embodied and broadly described herein, a motor safety control method for a robot may include receiving a first motor value from a high-resolution sensor of a motor, receiving a second motor value from a low-resolution sensor of the motor, and comparing a threshold with a difference between the first motor value and the second motor value, and transmitting an operation signal to a motor driver for the motor to continue or stop operation of the motor.”)
KA teaches the comparison of one motor value to another for the determination of motor failure. However, KA does not teach wherein the first motor data represents a first motor current drawn by the first motor.
LAN teaches:
wherein the first motor data represents a first motor current drawn by the first motor and the second motor data represents a current drawn by the motor, wherein comparing the first motor data with the second motor data comprises determining that the first motor current is greater than the second motor current, wherein determining the motor failure state comprises determining that the first motor has failed.
(LAN – Paragraph [0057-0058] states “Current control module 32 may also or alternatively be configured to compare the current electrical angle θ.sub.now (e.g., represented by the first electrical angle measurement θ.sub.1) to an anticipated (i.e., future) electrical angle θ.sub.next to determine whether a motor stall event has occurred. The anticipated electrical angle θ.sub.next may be determined based on an expected change in electrical angle θ over a sample period of time based on the determined motor speed n, the reference speed n.sub.ref, or a rate of change of the electrical angle θ (i.e., determined separately from the motor speed based on a number of previous angle determinations). After the sample period has elapsed, current control module 32 may determine that a motor stall event has occurred if the current electrical angle θ.sub.now is greater than or less than the anticipated electrical angle θ.sub.ref by a predetermined threshold, greater than or less than the predetermined electrical angle θ.sub.next by a predetermined threshold for a predetermined period of time, or otherwise indicative of a motor stall event” Paragraph [0079] further states “When the first and second electrical angle measurements θ.sub.1, θ.sub.2 are different (e.g., when their differences exceeds a threshold), angle comparison module 38 may then analyze other motor parameters and/or ambient conditions to determine whether the current operating conditions of motor 16 are more suitable for relying on position sensors 28 or sensorless methods for determining the electrical angle θ.”)
Krawiec, KA and LAN are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of failure detection system and safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec and KA with LAN. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations and detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors with the use of current data because using the current data in comparison to other motors can point out an abnormality which allows for a safer system.
Regarding claim 13,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
However, Krawiec and KA do not teach the limitations of claim 13.
LAN teaches:
wherein determining the motor failure state is further based on the first motor data or the second motor data indicating current being drawn above a predetermined current threshold.
(LAN – Paragraph [0058] states “After the sample period has elapsed, current control module 32 may determine that a motor stall event has occurred if the current electrical angle θ.sub.now is greater than or less than the anticipated electrical angle θ.sub.ref by a predetermined threshold, greater than or less than the predetermined electrical angle θ.sub.next by a predetermined threshold for a predetermined period of time, or otherwise indicative of a motor stall event” Paragraph [0079] further states “When the first and second electrical angle measurements θ.sub.1, θ.sub.2 are different (e.g., when their differences exceeds a threshold), angle comparison module 38 may then analyze other motor parameters and/or ambient conditions to determine whether the current operating conditions of motor 16 are more suitable for relying on position sensors 28 or sensorless methods for determining the electrical angle θ.”)
Krawiec, KA and LAN are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of failure detection system and safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec and KA with LAN. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations and detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors with the use of current data because using the current data in comparison to other motors can point out an abnormality which allows for a safer system.
Regarding claim 17,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Krawiec and KA do not teach the limitations of claim 17.
LAN teaches:
wherein the UAV comprises a first UAV and a second UAV, wherein each of the first UAV and the second UAV is caused to navigate through the trajectory, wherein the first motor forms part of the first UAV, and wherein the second motor forms part of the second UAV.
(LAN – Fig. 1, see below, elements 16 are the motors. Paragraph [0010] states “In one aspect, the present disclosure relates to a method of controlling a motor. The method may include generating a first motor controlling parameter measurement based on a signal received from a position sensor, generating a second motor controlling parameter measurement based on one or more motor electrical parameters, and controlling operation of the motor based on at least one of the first motor controlling parameter measurement or the second motor controlling parameter measurement.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
621
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Krawiec, KA and LAN are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of failure detection system and safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec and KA with LAN. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations and detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors with the use of current data because using the current data in comparison to other motors can point out an abnormality which allows for a safer system.
Regarding claim 19,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Krawiec and KA do not teach the limitations of claim 19.
LAN teaches:
wherein the first motor and the second motor are mounted symmetrically on the UAV.
(LAN – Fig. 1, see above, elements 16 are the motors.)
Krawiec, KA and LAN are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of failure detection system and safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec and KA with LAN. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations and detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors with having symmetrically mounted motors because they would allow the system to be more balanced and therefore safer.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. (US 11562654 B2) in view of KA et al. (US 20240429840 A1) and further in view of LAI (US 20220234734 A1).
Regarding claim 14,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
However, Krawiec and KA doesn’t teach the limitations of claim 14.
LAI teaches:
wherein causing the UAV to navigate through the trajectory comprises causing the UAV to move from a first altitude to a second altitude different from the first altitude.
(LAI – Paragraph [0046] states “stage 3 being from the time when the takeoff command is received (e.g., from the remote control 110 or the flight task management module 3024) until the time right before the UAV leaves the ground (i.e., when the motors starts to accelerate until producing enough ascending power to lift the UAV from the ground, the speed being greater than the idling speed); stage 4 being from the time when the UAV leaves the ground until the UAV reaches a specified altitude.”)
Krawiec, KA and LAI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of failure detection system and safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec and KA with LAI. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations and detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors with the use of altitude adjustment because this is a common system for adjusting a UAV and is even more important when needing to do an emergency landing safely and efficiently.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. (US 11562654 B2) in view of KA et al. (US 20240429840 A1) and further in view of Stollmeyer et al. (US 20240210963 A1).
Regarding claim 15,
Krawiec and KA teach the limitations of claim 1.
KA further teaches:
wherein comparing the first motor data with the second motor data comprises:
processing (i) a first control signal provided to the first motor during navigation through the trajectory, (ii) a second control signal provided to the second motor during navigation through the trajectory,
(KA – Paragraph [0019-0020] states “The motor safety control method may further include, based on the difference between the target travel speed and the travel speed of the robot according to at least one of the first motor value and the second motor value being out of the predetermined range, transmitting, by the processor, a first control signal to the speed monitor, the first control signal causing the speed monitor to output the operation stop signal to the motor driver.
[0020] The motor safety control method may further include monitoring, by a power manager, power usage of the processor for abnormalities, and, based on the power usage of the processor being monitored as being abnormal, transmitting, by the power manager, a second control signal to the speed monitor, the second control signal causing the speed monitor to output the operation stop signal to the motor driver.”)
KA teaches the control of a UAV with multiple motors through multiple control signals. However, KA does not teach generating, using the machine learning model, a motor failure value representing a likelihood that the motor failure state has been experienced during navigation through the trajectory.
Stollmeyer teaches:
the motor data using a machine learning model that has been trained to identify motor failure states; and
(Stollmeyer – Paragraph [0069] states “The recommendation & intervention engine 310 in turn receives the output from the CSFM risk prediction component 308 and determines an appropriate recommendation or an automated response, using a trained AI/ML model based on the particular CSFM identified and the associated likelihood of it occurring.”)
generating, using the machine learning model, a motor failure value representing a likelihood that the motor failure state has been experienced during navigation through the trajectory.
(Stollmeyer – Paragraph [0132] states “ In some examples, the flight control software 534 is provided with an electro-mechanical systems simulator to visually display the evolving airframe, electrical propulsion or other faults, the associated risks, root causes and intervention recommendations using video and audio (speech instruction) signals and commands for the pilots. Additionally, in the case of the AI/ML models identifying more than one possible fault and associated recommendation, the flight control software 534 can provide ‘what if simulations’ and estimated likelihoods of each occurring, to aid the decision making while troubleshooting during runtime, in terms of which intervention could lead to which type of remedial states. Flight control data from flight control software 534 can also be transmitted and processed for storage or analysis by the data environment 508 via an API 528.”)
Krawiec, KA and Stollmeyer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of failure detection system and safety control methods for UAVs and other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krawiec and KA with Stollmeyer. It would have been obvious to combine the control of a UAV across a trajectory for normal and emergency situations and detecting the motor failure by comparing received motor values from two separate motors with the use of machine learning because machine learning allows for a much more detailed and varied detection system which would be a safer and more efficient system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10 and 16 and their dependent 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-TUES 9-3.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668