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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 14 was objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the claim accordingly; as such, the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 11-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite. Applicant amended claims 11 and 13 accordingly; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pages 9-11 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Van Der Berg does not lay a cable on a ground surface along a flight path, cause a change of direction of the cable at a ground based obstacle, or recognize ground based obstacles, and that modifying Van Der Berg would render it “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, since a line laid on the ground cannot be strung on hanging sheaves”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and because the claim does not provide a definition for the directional flight path or recite how it is obtained, the directional flight path of the UAV encompasses the actual flight or movement of the UAV. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, laying a cable “around” ground based obstacles encompasses laying the cable on or near ground based obstacles. Furthermore, Fig. 11 of Van Der Berg shows a change in direction of the line at the transmission tower after it is drawn over the guide arm and when the end portion is laid on the ground. Therefore, the UAV moving to draw a line onto a hanging sheave of a transmission tower then lower the line to the ground, as recited in [0069-0070] of Van Der Berg, meets the claimed recognizing ground based obstacles and laying the line on the ground along the directional flight path. Therefore, the application of the Van Der Berg reference is still valid.
Applicant further argues that the steps of recognizing the flight path obstacles and recognizing the ground based obstacles recited in Johnson are distinct functions, that “nothing in Johnson recognizes an object for the purpose of routing a deployed cable between or around that object”, and that Johnson teaches away since it teaches that its deployed filament must be kept away from environmental objects. These arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection no longer recites Johnson for recognizing ground based obstacles between or around which a cable is to be laid and only recites Johnson for recognizing flight path obstacles and recognizing obstacles that define a floor and a ceiling of a flight path. See new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on page 11 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are moot. See new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11 and 13 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 7 and 15 are nonobvious since “In the claimed invention, by contrast, the laid cable - not a restraint tether - is wrapped around a ground based obstacle to create a sticking or turning point, and the drone then continues laying the cable along the flight path” and “Schuett's stated motivation of restraining drone motion is inapposite where the objective is that the drone continue moving and laying cable, and importing Schuett's belay into the combination would restrain the drone and frustrate the cable-laying operation of the base references”. These arguments have been considered but are moot. The arguments are not directed to the claims as written since the claims do not recite creating a sticking or turning point then having the drone continue moving to lay cable along the flight path.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Zuckerman does not determine an initial altitude of the drone from a map of vegetative cover”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Col. 31, lines 37-49 of Zuckerman recite using images of the ground environment to create a 3D model, which includes trees, then executing a low altitude flight path based on the 3D model. Therefore, the application of the Zuckerman reference is still valid.
Applicant’s arguments on page 12 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moster.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are moot. See new grounds of rejection. Furthermore, Applicant argues “the assembly of four references to reconstruct the claimed kit is indicative of impermissible hindsight, in which the claim itself has been used as a template”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The number of references is irrelevant since the references are all directed to UAVs and the rejection is merely a combination of known elements according to their established functions.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 7-8, and 14-17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein the recognition of obstacles”. Examiner respectfully recommends maintaining consistency between naming conventions to ensure clarity and to avoid ambiguity as to whether the “recognition of obstacles” is referring to the obstacles above and below the drone, the ground based obstacles, or the flight path obstacles recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the one or more sensors”. Examiner respectfully recommends maintaining consistency between naming conventions to ensure clarity and to avoid ambiguity as to whether “the one or more sensors” refers to sensors distinct from the “at least one sensor” introduced in parent claim 3.
Claims 7 and 16-17 recite “a ground based obstacle” and “the at least one ground based obstacle”, respectively. Examiner respectfully recommends maintaining consistency between naming conventions to ensure clarity and to avoid ambiguity as to whether “a ground based obstacle” and “the at least one ground based obstacle” refer to an obstacle distinct from the “ground based obstacles” introduced in parent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “ground based obstacles”. Examiner respectfully recommends modifying the limitation to “the ground based obstacles” to ensure clarity and to avoid ambiguity as to whether “ground based obstacles” refers to ground based obstacles distinct from those introduced in parent claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “…upon deceleration of the drone, t either as controlled by the controller or by mechanically engaging the cable spool”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error due to a possible markup error. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “…upon deceleration of the drone, either as controlled by the controller or by mechanically engaging the cable spool”.
Claim 15 recites “at least one ground based obstacle”. Examiner respectfully recommends maintaining consistency between naming conventions to ensure clarity and to avoid ambiguity as to whether “at least one ground based obstacle” refers to a ground based obstacle distinct from the “ground based obstacles” introduced in parent claim 11.
Claim 15 recites “the drone flight path”. Examiner respectfully recommends maintaining consistency between naming conventions to ensure clarity and to avoid ambiguity as to whether the “the drone flight path” is distinct from the “directional flight path” introduced in parent claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 3-6, 8, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg of US 20240332925 A1, filed 07/29/2022, hereinafter “Van Der Berg”, in view of Johnson of US 20200218288 A1, filed 08/22/2019, hereinafter “Johnson”.
Regarding claim 1, Van Der Berg teaches:
A method for laying a cable with the cable carried by a drone, comprising: flying a drone along a directional flight path to lay the cable; (See at least [0002]: “The present disclosure further relates to a transmission tower anchoring system and method for assisting with the installation process for power line cables on transmission towers. In particular, the present invention further relates to a system, device, and method that facilitate the anchoring of a line at the end of a stringing run” & [0057]: “In order to slot a line 80 carried by an aerial vehicle 30 into the hanging sheave 10, the aerial vehicle 30 is operated as shown in FIG. 1 to draw the line 80 over the guide arm 52 and then to lower the line 80 onto the line guide arm 52 as shown in FIG. 2.” See also [0069] regarding the aerial vehicle reversing toward the transmission tower.)
(See at least [0057]: “As the aerial vehicle 30 lowers the line 80, the slope of the guide arm 52 draws the line 80 towards the gate 54, which opens by resiliently pivoting inwardly (as shown by the curved arrow in FIG. 2) and then snaps back to the closed position once the line 80 has passed into the aperture 20” & [0070]: “As shown in FIG. 11, the end portion 216 of the line 210 can then be dropped or lowered to the ground by the aerial vehicle 202 where it can be secured to a ground anchor point 230.”)
recognizing ground based obstacles between or around which the cable is to be laid; (See at least [0057]: “In order to slot a line 80 carried by an aerial vehicle 30 into the hanging sheave 10, the aerial vehicle 30 is operated as shown in FIG. 1 to draw the line 80 over the guide arm 52 and then to lower the line 80 onto the line guide arm 52 as shown in FIG. 2. As the aerial vehicle 30 lowers the line 80, the slope of the guide arm 52 draws the line 80 towards the gate 54, which opens by resiliently pivoting inwardly (as shown by the curved arrow in FIG. 2) and then snaps back to the closed position once the line 80 has passed into the aperture 20” & [0069]: “Once the line 210 has been threaded onto the hanging sheave 252 of the last transmission tower 254, the aerial vehicle 202 reverses toward the transmission tower 254 and the line 210 is allowed to retract until the anchor body 280 abuts against the hanging sheave 252, as shown in FIG. 10.”)
laying the cable on a ground surface along the directional flight path between or around the ground based obstacles, such that a direction of the cable being laid is changed at at least one of the ground based obstacles. (See at least [0069-0070]: “As shown in FIG. 9, the line anchor system 200 is arranged between an end portion 216 and a trailing portion 218 of the line 210. During operation, an aerial vehicle 202 carries the end portion 216 of the line 210 to a series of transmission towers 254 and threads the trailing portion 218 of the line 210 into an aperture above a hanging sheave 252 of each transmission tower 254. Once the line 210 has been threaded onto the hanging sheave 252 of the last transmission tower 254, the aerial vehicle 202 reverses toward the transmission tower 254 and the line 210 is allowed to retract until the anchor body 280 abuts against the hanging sheave 252, as shown in FIG. 10. This anchor body 280 acts as a stop and prevents further retraction of the line 210, while the end portion 216 of the line 210 falls slack. As shown in FIG. 11, the end portion 216 of the line 210 can then be dropped or lowered to the ground by the aerial vehicle 202 where it can be secured to a ground anchor point 230. The tension can then be increased on the line 210 by winding the line 210 onto a cable winch at one end. When the tension exceeds the maximum yield of the mechanical fuse 250, the mechanical fuse 250 breaks and the loop 212 is retracted from the hole 282, releasing the anchor body 280 from the line 210 and allowing it to fall to the ground.”)
Van Der Berg does not explicitly teach:
recognizing obstacles above the drone that define a ceiling of the flight path and below the flight path defining a floor for the flight path, and…
recognizing flight path obstacles at the adjusted altitude and altering the directional flight path to avoid the flight path obstacles; and
Johnson teaches:
recognizing obstacles above the drone that define a ceiling of the flight path and below the flight path defining a floor for the flight path, and… (See at least [0149]: “At step 2004, the UAV (e.g., an onboard processor and/or SOM) filters noise from the sensor data to generate a set of fiducial points in the operating space describing a flight path for the UAV. In one embodiment, the set of fiducial points are based on a distance of one or more objects detected by the sensor arrays, wherein the set of fiducial points are designed to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space” & [0159]: “…the bumper 2104 includes a plurality of sensor arrays mounted to the circular bumper ring 2208 of the frame component 2202, as shown in FIGS. 24-25C…multiple sensors are placed on the unmanned aerial vehicle 2302 in order to get a full 360° image. The plurality of sensors arrays may be used to detect surroundings. In another embodiment, the sensor arrays are positioned on the unmanned aerial vehicle 2302 to provide a field of view in at least 3 directions that are at least 90 degrees apart to have a clear and unobstructed field of view…”. See also Fig. 46A & [0257] regarding the OCU display which shows the proximity of the UAV to the “surface around and above and below”.)
recognizing flight path obstacles at the adjusted altitude and altering the directional flight path to avoid the flight path obstacles; and (See at least [0119]: “In an exemplary embodiment, processor 1504 transmits instructions over a communications bus to instruct the one or more motors to adjust the one or more of the rotors into a tilted, vertical or horizontal configuration. Such command signals can be sent in response to on-board sensor data indicating that a flight path change is needed to avoid a collision. Alternatively, the system can receive wireless commands from an external flight controller that determines a collision avoidance path must be implemented to avoid a collision with other objects such as buildings or other vehicles” & [0265]: “FIG. 46G depicts a screenshot of the OCU display 4600 displaying an image taken by a video camera on the unmanned aerial vehicle while the unmanned aerial vehicle is in assist mode. Bars located on the screen of the image indicate a distance 4670 between the unmanned aerial vehicle and objects, such as walls.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Van Der Berg’s method with Johnson’s technique of recognizing flight path obstacles at the adjusted altitude and altering the directional flight path to avoid the flight path obstacles and recognizing obstacles above the drone that define a ceiling of the flight path and below the flight path defining a floor for the flight path. Doing so would be obvious for “providing situational awareness about the environment and motion constraints to assist user driven flight” and “to avoid a collision with other objects such as buildings or other vehicles” (See [0285] & [0119] of Johnson).
Regarding claim 3, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Johnson additionally teaches:
wherein the recognition of obstacles is by at least one sensor in communication with a controller. (See at least [0142]: “FIG. 17 illustrates a diagram of a global bus in an embedded control system for the unmanned aerial vehicle. A main FPGA 1702 receives data transmitted over a global bus 1703 from a communications module 1704, a sonar altimeter and/or barometric altimeter module 1706, a HD camera module 1708, a laser scanner module 1710, and at least one system software manager (SSM) module 1712” & [0148]: “At step 2002, the UAV receives sensor data from multiple directions within a flight operating space, the detected sensor data including near field sensor data, mid-range sensor data, and far field sensor data. Each sensor array detects objects, events, and/or changes in the sensor array's field of view.”)
Regarding claim 4, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above.
Johnson additionally teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors are one or more of GPS, camera, LIDAR, IMU, accelerometer, and tension sensor. (See at least [0142]: “A main FPGA 1702 receives data transmitted over a global bus 1703 from a communications module 1704, a sonar altimeter and/or barometric altimeter module 1706, a HD camera module 1708, a laser scanner module 1710, and at least one system software manager (SSM) module 1712.”)
Regarding claim 5, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above.
Johnson additionally teaches:
wherein the controller has a map representing three dimensions (“3D map”). (See at least [0221]: “In some embodiments, mission planning may be provided. Mission planning includes setting up a mission plan for a particular area, defining high level behaviors (slow scan of a designated vs exploring), fiducial points, designating preferred approach directions, and/or keep out zones. This can include auxiliary data such as building/structure plans, terrain maps, weather or solar data, and autonomous execution” & [0248]: “Visual displays that provide partial or full information of the shape of the environment and the vehicle position and orientation in the environment are included. These maps may be two dimensional or three dimensional, and include point clouds or rendered structure models”)
Regarding claim 6, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Van Der Berg additionally teaches:
wherein there is an additional step of tensioning the cable. (See at least [0070]: “As shown in FIG. 11, the end portion 216 of the line 210 can then be dropped or lowered to the ground by the aerial vehicle 202 where it can be secured to a ground anchor point 230. The tension can then be increased on the line 210 by winding the line 210 onto a cable winch at one end.”)
Regarding claim 8, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Johnson additionally teaches:
wherein the flight path is an initial flight path determined by a map to avoid ground based obstacles. (See at least [0118]: “The onboard processor 1504 and SOM 1506 can generate a set of fiducial points describing the flight path, and can maneuver the flight path by altering rotor speed, or altering rotor tilt angle, or a combination of both”, [0120]: “The sensor modules 1510 transmit sensor data to the FPGA 1502, which filters the sensor data to create the set of fiducial points that define viable flight paths. The set of fiducial points are based on a distance of one or more objects detected by the sensor modules 1510, wherein the fiducial points are designed to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space” & [0221]: “In some embodiments, mission planning may be provided. Mission planning includes setting up a mission plan for a particular area, defining high level behaviors (slow scan of a designated vs exploring), fiducial points, designating preferred approach directions, and/or keep out zones. This can include auxiliary data such as building/structure plans, terrain maps, weather or solar data, and autonomous execution.”)
Regarding claim 16, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Van Der Berg additionally teaches:
wherein the directional flight path comprises a plurality of linear segments connected at vertices, and the at least one ground based obstacle at which the direction of the cable is changed is located at a vertex of the plurality of linear segments. (See at least Figs. 9-11, [0063]: “With the line 180 contained within the throat, the aerial vehicle 30 can continue on and slot the line 180 into the throat 156 of the attachment device 150 on multiple successive transmission towers. Once the line 180 has been drawn through a series of transmission towers in this manner, the line 180 can then be drawn taught” & [0069]: “As shown in FIG. 9, the line anchor system 200 is arranged between an end portion 216 and a trailing portion 218 of the line 210. During operation, an aerial vehicle 202 carries the end portion 216 of the line 210 to a series of transmission towers 254 and threads the trailing portion 218 of the line 210 into an aperture above a hanging sheave 252 of each transmission tower 254. Once the line 210 has been threaded onto the hanging sheave 252 of the last transmission tower 254, the aerial vehicle 202 reverses toward the transmission tower 254 and the line 210 is allowed to retract until the anchor body 280 abuts against the hanging sheave 252, as shown in FIG. 10. This anchor body 280 acts as a stop and prevents further retraction of the line 210, while the end portion 216 of the line 210 falls slack.”)
Regarding claim 17, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Van Der Berg additionally teaches:
wherein the at least one ground based obstacle at which the direction of the cable is changed comprises one of a tree, a pole, a boulder, and a building edge. (See at least Fig. 1 & [0055]: “The present disclosure provides a transmission tower line attachment device for facilitating the installation of a line on a hanging sheave of a transmission tower. The device employs a series of guides and gates to efficiently and securely feed the line into the hanging sheave of the transmission tower.”)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg in view of Johnson and further in view of Schuett of US 20180354618 A1, published 12/13/2018, hereinafter “Schuett”.
Regarding claim 7, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the method further comprises an additional step of wrapping the cable around a ground based obstacle.
Schuett teaches:
wherein the method further comprises an additional step of wrapping the cable around a ground based obstacle. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0031]: “In a particular embodiment, the target 131 to which the UAV is directed includes a tower 132 carrying one or more antennae 133, and the belay point 456 can be located at the tower 132…In yet another embodiment, the belay point 456 can be created by the UAV 110 without the need for a belay device 457. For example, the UAV 110 can fly several times around the tower 132, wrapping the tether 153 tightly around the belay point 456.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Van Der Berg and Johnson’s method with Schuett’s technique of wrapping the cable around a ground based obstacle. Doing so would be obvious for “further restrain[ing] the motion of the UAV 110 in the event of a failure” via the belay point (See at least [0030] of Schuett).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg in view of Johnson and further in view of Fisk of US 20230236381 A1, filed 06/22/2021, hereinafter “Fisk”.
Regarding claim 2, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the cable is optical fiber.
Fisk teaches:
wherein the cable is optical fiber. (See at least [0129]: “FIG. 1a also shows a crawler 190 as it navigates the surface of the tank to lay a fiber optic cable 104…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to perform the teachings of Van Der Berg in view of Johnson using any type of cable, such as the optical fiber cable taught by Fisk, since “using a crawler to lay the cable reduces the need to have people working on the structures, and may provide a better way of accurately, quickly and easily mapping the route or path of the cable as it is laid/installed” and “One example of where a cable needs to be installed is using a fiber optic cable attached along its length to a floating-roof seal assembly to monitor deformation of the floating-roof seal assembly. Deformation of the fiber optic cable and the seal assembly can be determined based on how the light interacts with the fiber optic cable. This helps allow tanks with a floating roof to be monitored” (See [0119-0120] of Fisk).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg in view of Johnson and further in view of Zuckerman of US 11565807 B1, filed 05/14/2020, hereinafter “Zuckerman”.
Regarding claim 9, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the drone initially flies at a predetermined altitude determined by a map of vegetative cover.
Zuckerman teaches:
wherein the drone initially flies at a predetermined altitude determined by a map of vegetative cover. (See at least Fig. 1X & col. 31, lines 37-49: “…the system may use cameras and/or lidar sensors onboard on-road vehicles 1-traffic traversing associated roads 1-road (FIG. 1X) to capture imagery data of the ground-related environment from the ground, thereby having sufficient initial imagery data to 3D model structures, such as trees 1-tree and poles 1-obstacles-1, situated up to twenty meters above road level 1-road, or perhaps situated just up to ten meters above road level, depending on sensors and actual environment, thereby updating the 3D model 1-PE-model to a level that allows preliminary low altitude flight 10-path (FIG. 1X) above and along the roads 1-road. The system may then execute said low altitude flight 10-path…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Van Der Berg and Johnson’s method with Zuckerman’s predetermined altitude being an initial altitude and determined by a map of vegetative cover. Doing so would be obvious so “the drone 10 can easily avoid collisions with the traffic and obstacles while maintaining a mostly uninterrupted flight along the path of progression 10-path” (See col. 18, lines 48-50 of Zuckerman).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg in view of Johnson and further in view of Zuckerman and Moster of US 20180204469 A1, published 07/19/2018, hereinafter “Moster”.
Regarding claim 10, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the drone initially flies at a predetermined altitude that is a meter lower than a median altitude of vegetative cover.
However, Zuckerman teaches plotting a flight path for a drone that is low enough to avoid collisions with suspended objects, such as a tree, and high enough to avoid traffic below the drone (See col. 29, lines 42-55). Additionally, Moster teaches determining a buffer around a UAV for avoiding a collision, where “the buffer can be a particular distance from the extremities of the UAV (e.g., 1 meter, 2 meters)” and “may be of a spherical shape surrounding the UAV, a rectangular shape, or an arbitrary polygonal shape according to error extending as a vector from each location on the UAV” (See at least Fig. 13, [0137] & [0139]). Therefore, the combination of Zuckerman and Moster renders obvious avoiding obstacles, including the vegetative cover, by the amount of distance recited in the claim, which has the benefit of allowing the drone to avoid collisions “even if it fails to detect road-related suspended objects and actual traffic” (See col. 29, lines 55-59 of Zuckerman) and so “the UAV will not be at a risk of collision” (See [0140] of Moster).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Van Der Berg and Johnson’s method with the teachings of Zuckerman. Doing so would be obvious so “the drone 10 can easily avoid collisions with the traffic and obstacles while maintaining a mostly uninterrupted flight along the path of progression 10-path” (See col. 18, lines 48-50 of Zuckerman) and so “the UAV will not be at a risk of collision” (See [0140] of Moster).
Claim(s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Robertson of US 20190023520 A1, filed 07/21/2017, hereinafter “Robertson”, and Patrick of US 20150158587 A1, filed 08/26/2013, hereinafter “Patrick”, and further in view of Van Der Berg.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson teaches:
A kit installed on a drone for laying a light weight cable comprising: (See at least [0069]: “The unmanned aerial vehicle 202 includes all flight systems and sensors. The microfilament tether system includes a spooler 204 and an interchangeable microfilament dispenser installed on the unmanned aerial vehicle 202. The microfilament tether system enables power and data transfer between the unmanned aerial vehicle 202 and a base station…”)
a cable spool for the light weight cable, (See at least [0096]: “FIG. 10 shows a depiction of a specialized spool 1002. The specialized spool 1002 is a coil of wire/tether/microfilament…”)
one or more sensors; (See at least [0142]: “FIG. 17 illustrates a diagram of a global bus in an embedded control system for the unmanned aerial vehicle. A main FPGA 1702 receives data transmitted over a global bus 1703 from a communications module 1704, a sonar altimeter and/or barometric altimeter module 1706, a HD camera module 1708, a laser scanner module 1710, and at least one system software manager (SSM) module 1712” & [0148]: “At step 2002, the UAV receives sensor data from multiple directions within a flight operating space, the detected sensor data including near field sensor data, mid-range sensor data, and far field sensor data. Each sensor array detects objects, events, and/or changes in the sensor array's field of view.”)
a controller, the controller configured to control a directional flight path and drone altitude, (See at least [0118-0119]: “The onboard processor 1504 and SOM 1506 can generate a set of fiducial points describing the flight path, and can maneuver the flight path by altering rotor speed, or altering rotor tilt angle, or a combination of both…” & [0150]: “At step 2006, the UAV to follow the set of fiducial points that define the flight path. Further processing the detected sensor data to adjust speed, direction, and altitude of the UAV using the set of fiducial points that define a selected flight path…”)
wherein the controller is configured to receive data from the one or more sensors, to: control the altitude and directional flight path of the drone, (See at least [0149-0150]: “…the set of fiducial points are designed to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space…Further processing the detected sensor data to adjust speed, direction, and altitude of the UAV using the set of fiducial points that define a selected flight path…For example, in one embodiment, a processor embedded on the UAV transmits signals over a communications bus to one or more motors of the one or more rotors to adjust a configuration of the one or more rotors. Such command signals can be sent to follow the set of fiducial points or in response to on-board sensor data indicating that a flight path change is needed to avoid a collision. The UAV can maneuver through the flight path by altering rotor speed, or altering rotor tilt angle, or a combination of both.” See also Fig. 46A & [0256] regarding the OCU display which shows the “current altitude, a home altitude, a range covered during flight, and the starting altitude”.)
recognize flight path obstacles; (See at least [0119]: “In an exemplary embodiment, processor 1504 transmits instructions over a communications bus to instruct the one or more motors to adjust the one or more of the rotors into a tilted, vertical or horizontal configuration. Such command signals can be sent in response to on-board sensor data indicating that a flight path change is needed to avoid a collision. Alternatively, the system can receive wireless commands from an external flight controller that determines a collision avoidance path must be implemented to avoid a collision with other objects such as buildings or other vehicles” & [0265]: “FIG. 46G depicts a screenshot of the OCU display 4600 displaying an image taken by a video camera on the unmanned aerial vehicle while the unmanned aerial vehicle is in assist mode. Bars located on the screen of the image indicate a distance 4670 between the unmanned aerial vehicle and objects, such as walls.”)
recognize ground based obstacles(See at least [0148]: “…At step 2002, the UAV receives sensor data from multiple directions within a flight operating space, the detected sensor data including near field sensor data, mid-range sensor data, and far field sensor data. Each sensor array detects objects, events, and/or changes in the sensor array's field of view…” & [0265]: “FIG. 46G depicts a screenshot of the OCU display 4600 displaying an image taken by a video camera on the unmanned aerial vehicle while the unmanned aerial vehicle is in assist mode. Bars located on the screen of the image indicate a distance 4670 between the unmanned aerial vehicle and objects, such as walls…”)
adjust the directional flight path(See at least [0119]: “In an exemplary embodiment, processor 1504 transmits instructions over a communications bus to instruct the one or more motors to adjust the one or more of the rotors into a tilted, vertical or horizontal configuration. Such command signals can be sent in response to on-board sensor data indicating that a flight path change is needed to avoid a collision. Alternatively, the system can receive wireless commands from an external flight controller that determines a collision avoidance path must be implemented to avoid a collision with other objects such as buildings or other vehicles…”)
Johnson does not explicitly teach:
a cable tensioner to maintain tension of the light weight cable,
an anti-rotation mechanism for the cable spool;
a cable cutter to cut the light weight cable;
Robertson teaches:
a cable tensioner to maintain tension of the light weight cable, (See at least [0055]: “In some embodiments, instead of a system that selectively disengages the brake assembly allowing the cable spool to freely rotate, as described above, an adjustable friction brake is used, which is engaged to a certain amount of pressure and keeps constant tension and drag on the cable and spool to avoid over-spooling and tangling.”)
an anti-rotation mechanism for the cable spool; (See at least [0042]: “The aerial cable laying device 100 shown also comprises a spool brake assembly 118 that is positioned on the support frame 102 adjacent to an end of the spool 104. The spool brake assembly 118 is configured to prevent rotation of the cable spool 104 when the brake assembly 118 is engaged…”)
a cable cutter to cut the light weight cable; (See at least [0057]: “The device 300 of the second embodiment of the present invention further comprises a cutter 334 for cutting the cable from the cable spool 304. Preferably, the cutter 334 is operable by remote control. The cutter 334 is provided within the cable guide 308 located at the rear end 324 of the device 300.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Johnson’s kit with Robertson’s cable tensioner, anti-rotation mechanism, and cable cutter. Doing so would be obvious “to provide for improved aerial cable laying devices that allow for prevention of cable spool rotation resulting in cable slack as cable is being deployed, selective cutting of deployed cable from the device, and mechanical rotation control of the spool” (See [0012] of Robertson).
Johnson and Robertson in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is in communication with the drone, the cable cutter, the cable spool and the cable tensioner, and is connected to the one or more sensors;
However, Patrick teaches a UAV with a control system that receives sensor data and operates different control components, such as the line-deployment mechanism and payload-release mechanism (See at least [0025] & [0038]). Additionally, Robertson teaches a spool brake assembly that prevents rotation of the spool, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Patrick’s control system to any component, such as Robertson’s spool brake assembly, to “intelligently control” different components of the UAV (See [0038] of Patrick).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Johnson and Robertson’s kit with Patrick’s controller. Doing so would be obvious to “intelligently control” different components of the UAV (See [0038] of Patrick).
Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination do not explicitly teach:
…between or around which the light weight cable is to be laid…
…to lay the light weight cable on a ground surface along the directional flight path between or around the ground based obstacles, such that a direction of the light weight cable being laid is changed at at least one of the ground based obstacles.
Van Der Berg teaches:
…between or around which the light weight cable is to be laid… (See at least [0057]: “In order to slot a line 80 carried by an aerial vehicle 30 into the hanging sheave 10, the aerial vehicle 30 is operated as shown in FIG. 1 to draw the line 80 over the guide arm 52 and then to lower the line 80 onto the line guide arm 52 as shown in FIG. 2. As the aerial vehicle 30 lowers the line 80, the slope of the guide arm 52 draws the line 80 towards the gate 54, which opens by resiliently pivoting inwardly (as shown by the curved arrow in FIG. 2) and then snaps back to the closed position once the line 80 has passed into the aperture 20” & [0069]: “Once the line 210 has been threaded onto the hanging sheave 252 of the last transmission tower 254, the aerial vehicle 202 reverses toward the transmission tower 254 and the line 210 is allowed to retract until the anchor body 280 abuts against the hanging sheave 252, as shown in FIG. 10.”)
…to lay the light weight cable on a ground surface along the directional flight path between or around the ground based obstacles, such that a direction of the light weight cable being laid is changed at at least one of the ground based obstacles. (See at least [0069-0070]: “As shown in FIG. 9, the line anchor system 200 is arranged between an end portion 216 and a trailing portion 218 of the line 210. During operation, an aerial vehicle 202 carries the end portion 216 of the line 210 to a series of transmission towers 254 and threads the trailing portion 218 of the line 210 into an aperture above a hanging sheave 252 of each transmission tower 254. Once the line 210 has been threaded onto the hanging sheave 252 of the last transmission tower 254, the aerial vehicle 202 reverses toward the transmission tower 254 and the line 210 is allowed to retract until the anchor body 280 abuts against the hanging sheave 252, as shown in FIG. 10. This anchor body 280 acts as a stop and prevents further retraction of the line 210, while the end portion 216 of the line 210 falls slack. As shown in FIG. 11, the end portion 216 of the line 210 can then be dropped or lowered to the ground by the aerial vehicle 202 where it can be secured to a ground anchor point 230. The tension can then be increased on the line 210 by winding the line 210 onto a cable winch at one end. When the tension exceeds the maximum yield of the mechanical fuse 250, the mechanical fuse 250 breaks and the loop 212 is retracted from the hole 282, releasing the anchor body 280 from the line 210 and allowing it to fall to the ground.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick’s kit with Van Der Berg’s techniques of recognizing ground-based obstacles between or around which the light weight cable is to be laid and adjusting a directional flight path to lay light weight cable on a ground surface along the directional flight path between or around the ground based obstacles, such that a direction of the light weight cable being laid is changed at at least one of the ground based obstacles. Doing so would be obvious “In order to address the difficulty of quickly and safely installing power lines on transmission towers”, “to improve the efficiency of the attachment of a line to each tower when installing high voltage power line cables on transmission towers”, and “to facilitate the process of anchoring the free end of the line to a ground anchor point while maintaining tension on the line” (See Abstract, [0006] & [0009] of Van Der Berg).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson, Robertson, Patrick, and Van Der Berg in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Robertson additionally teaches:
wherein the controller controls the cable tensioner, the cable cutter, and the directional flight path by controlling the drone speed, altitude, pitch, yaw, and roll. (See at least [0041]: “The cable spool 104 rotates while deploying cable 106 as the aircraft moves forward…” & [0066]: “…The aircraft then lifts the device 500 and begins to move in the desired direction, laying the wire along a pre-determined route that may be pre-programmed into the aircraft's onboard GPS. As the device begins to move forward, the tension on the cable increases, lifting up on the pivoting bar resulting in the brake assembly disengaging. If the device slows down during cable deployment then tension is released and the pivoting bar drops resulting in the brake assembly engaging again. This allows for the cable to be deployed without over-spooling from the angular momentum and resulting in the cable tangling. Once the cable on the spool runs out, it simply drops from the device 500.”)
Regarding claim 14, Johnson, Robertson, Patrick, and Van Der Berg in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Robertson additionally teaches:
wherein the anti-rotation mechanism is configured to engage the cable spool upon deceleration of the drone, t either as controlled by the controller or by mechanically engaging the cable spool. (See at least [0053]: “When the aircraft carrying the device 300 slows down during cable deployment, tension is released and the brake actuating rod 332 drops, resulting in the brake assembly 318 to engage…”)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Robertson, Patrick, and Van Der Berg, and further in view of Fisk.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the lightweight cable is optical cable.
Fisk teaches:
wherein the lightweight cable is optical cable. (See at least [0129]: “FIG. 1a also shows a crawler 190 as it navigates the surface of the tank to lay a fiber optic cable 104…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to perform the teachings of Johnson in view of Robertson, Patrick, and Van Der Berg’s using any type of cable, such as Fisk’s fiber optic cable, since “using a crawler to lay the cable reduces the need to have people working on the structures, and may provide a better way of accurately, quickly and easily mapping the route or path of the cable as it is laid/installed” and “One example of where a cable needs to be installed is using a fiber optic cable attached along its length to a floating-roof seal assembly to monitor deformation of the floating-roof seal assembly. Deformation of the fiber optic cable and the seal assembly can be determined based on how the light interacts with the fiber optic cable. This helps allow tanks with a floating roof to be monitored” (See [0119-0120] of Fisk).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Robertson, Patrick, and Van Der Berg and further in view of Schuett.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson, Robertson, Patrick, and Van Der Berg in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Johnson, Robertson, Patrick, and Van Der Berg in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the drone flight path to wrap the cable around at least one ground based obstacle.
Schuett teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the drone flight path to wrap the cable around at least one ground based obstacle. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0031]: “In a particular embodiment, the target 131 to which the UAV is directed includes a tower 132 carrying one or more antennae 133, and the belay point 456 can be located at the tower 132…In yet another embodiment, the belay point 456 can be created by the UAV 110 without the need for a belay device 457. For example, the UAV 110 can fly several times around the tower 132, wrapping the tether 153 tightly around the belay point 456.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Johnson, Robertson, Patrick, and Van Der Berg’s kit with Schuett’s technique of wrapping the cable around a ground based obstacle. Doing so would be obvious for “further restrain[ing] the motion of the UAV 110 in the event of a failure” via the belay point (See at least [0030] of Schuett).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240204493 A1 is directed to a drone that lifts a rope over an object and pulls down the rope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
