DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 7/28/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-14, 16 and 18-22 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 2/10/2026, Examiner withdraws the previous specification objections; and withdraws the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, lines 11-17, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 9, 12-17 and 20-24 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 a newly found prior art reference. Durov (RU 2 629 475) discloses an aircraft comprising traction propellers, hover rotors, and elevators attached to the stabilizers of a V-shaped tail. Durov further discloses an emergency landing response to an engine failure (i.e., a reduction in power) wherein a control signal causes an automated change of flight configuration into a helicopter or winged autogyro with autorotating rotors while simultaneously deflecting the V-shaped stabilizer elevators downward. The combined teachings of Dormiani, Roberts, Prager and Durov disclose coordinating the adjustment of control surfaces, a triggering of a plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate, and a reduction in power to a propulsion system of a UAV, in combination with the other elements required by the claim.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Dormiani’s approach of compensating for inoperable propellers to slowly descend the aerial vehicle for landing is fundamentally different from the claimed invention (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 134 discloses anomalies detected in propulsion systems may contribute to the identification of a control tier failure, and paragraphs 29-30 further disclose triggering the hover rotors to freely rotate and performing the deep stall maneuver to slow the UAV’s descent. Therefore, both Dormiani’s and Applicant’s disclosures are directed to slowing a UAV’s descent in response to a propulsion failure. It is noted that Dormiani is not relied upon to disclose inducing a deep stall condition in the UAV, rather, it is the combination of Dormiani with Prager and Roberts that teaches inducing the deep stall. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that rotating the vertical stabilizers of Prager from 0 to 90 degrees to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight is the opposite aerodynamic effect from the claimed deep stall condition that causes the nose of the UAV to pitch upward and the wings to stall (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant discloses, in paragraph 150, that the rotation of the stabilizer’s control surfaces to the perpendicular position significantly disrupts the airflow over the stabilizers which causes a substantial increase in drag and loss of lift over the tail section causing the nose of the aircraft to pitch upward. Prager, in paragraph 126, discloses rotating the rear stabilizers to 90 degrees to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight to reduce lift and move the center of pressure of the UAV towards, or in alignment with, the center of gravity of the UAV. Prager further discloses, in paragraph 128 and figure 10A, that the center of pressure is forward of the center of gravity during normal stable forward flight, and moves aft when the vertical stabilizers are rotated. Both Prager’s and Applicant’s solutions increase drag and reduce lift over the tail section which causes the nose of the aircraft to pitch up, as disclosed by Applicant, and well known in the art. It is noted that the combined teachings of Dormiani with Prager and Roberts are relied upon to explicitly disclose rotating a rear stabilizer control surface perpendicular to cause a loss of lift that raises the aircraft’s nose to induce a deep stall of its wing. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the amended claims include a coordinated approach of simultaneously inducing a deep stall, triggering hover rotor windmilling, and reducing propulsion power (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 11-12), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., simultaneously inducing a deep stall, triggering windmilling, and reducing propulsion power) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims require coordinating the adjustment of the control surfaces, a triggering of the plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate, and a reduction in power to a propulsion system of the UAV. Coordination includes both performing and not performing an action, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the computing device must merely be capable of performing all three actions. Further, the claims do not positively recite triggering the plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate and/or reducing the power to a propulsion system of the UAV based on detecting the control tier failure. See rejection below.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 8-15, the indentation should be increased to make it clear that the limitations therein are functions of the computing device configuration.
In claim 7, lines 1-5, “The UAV of claim 6, further comprising: a first plurality of hover rotors coupled to the first boom and a second plurality of hover rotors coupled to the second boom, wherein the computing device is configured to trigger the first plurality of hover rotors and the second plurality of hover rotors” should read “The UAV of claim 6, wherein the plurality of hover rotors comprise a first plurality of hover rotors coupled to the first boom and a second plurality of hover rotors coupled to the second boom[[,]]; and wherein the computing device is further configured to trigger the first plurality of hover rotors and the second plurality of hover rotors”, to make the relationship clear between the first and second pluralities of hover rotors and the plurality of hover rotors recited in claim 1, line 6.
In claim 18, lines 2-3, “The method of claim 16, further comprising: triggering, based on detecting the control tier failure at the UAV, a plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate, wherein each hover rotor is coupled to either the first boom or the second boom.” should read “The method of claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-14, 16 and 18-22 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, lines 14-15, 16-17 and 17-18, respectively, the limitation “coordinat[e/ing] the adjustment of the control surfaces, a triggering of the plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate, and a reduction in power to a propulsion system of the UAV” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be explicit disclosure of coordinating all three actions in a single embodiment. Paragraph 143 discloses the adjustment of control surfaces may be coordinated with other actions, such as reducing power to the propulsion systems or activating the windmilling of hover rotors.
Claims 2, 5-12, 14, 16, 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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) 1-6, 9, 12-17 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormiani et al. (US 2019/0036732), hereinafter Dormiani, in view of Roberts et al. (US 4,099,687) and Prager et al. (US 2020/0070968), hereinafter Roberts and Prager, respectively, and Durov (RU 2 629 475).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, Dormiani discloses an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) (Dormiani; paras. 34-35: Herein, the terms “unmanned aerial system” and “UAS” refer to any autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that is capable of performing some functions without a physically present human pilot … the terms “drone,” “unmanned aerial vehicle system” (UAVS), or “unmanned aerial vehicle” (UAV) may also be used to refer to a UAS.) comprising: a fuselage (Dormiani; fig. 1A: fuselage 1104); a pair of wings extending outwardly from the fuselage (Dormiani; fig. 1A: stationary wings 1102); a pair of stabilizers arranged in a V-shape configuration (Dormiani; fig. 1A: stabilizers 1108), wherein each stabilizer has a control surface that is adjustable relative to a fixed portion of the stabilizer (Dormiani; para. 39: the stabilizers 1108 may include one or more rudders 1108a for controlling the UAS's yaw); a plurality of hover rotors coupled to the UAV (Dormiani; para. 38: In the UAS 1100a, a pair of rotor supports 1110 extend beneath the wings 1106, and a plurality of rotors 1112 are attached rotor supports 1110. Rotors 1110 may be used during a hover mode); and a computing device configured to: detect a control tier failure at the UAV (Dormiani; para. 124: a CAN controller may determine that the flight module has stopped sending signals, and thereby determine the failure state … In response, one or more CAN controllers may send control signals to flight modules associated with control zones 610, 612, 616, and 618 that instruct the flight modules to compensate for the inoperable propellers and to slowly descend the aerial vehicle for landing).
Dormiani does not explicitly disclose based on detecting the control tier failure at the UAV, autonomously adjusting the control surface of each stabilizer from a first angle, at which the control surface is aligned substantially flat along the fixed portion of the stabilizer, to a second angle, to induce a deep stall condition in the UAV that causes the nose of the UAV to pitch upward and the wings to stall; and coordinating the adjustment of the control surfaces and a reduction in power to a propulsion system of the UAV.
Roberts, in the same field of endeavor (aircraft controls), discloses autonomously adjusting control surfaces of a stabilizer (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 58-63) from a first angle, at which the control surface is aligned substantially flat along the fixed portion of the stabilizer (Roberts; figures 5 and 6 show the same aircraft, therefore, spoilers 78 are not distinguishable from the stabilizer in the side view because their surfaces are substantially flat, as conventionally configured for an aircraft spoiler), to a second angle, to induce a deep stall condition in an aircraft that causes the nose of the aircraft to pitch upward and the wings to stall (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 45-51: Spoilers 78 on the stabilizer 68 are actuated to cause the stabilizer to stall. Loss of lift from the stabilizer 68 causes the tail to drop, further raising the airplane's nose. This induces deep stall of the wing 64; and lacking lift from both wing and stabilizer, the airplane 60 translates downward through a near vertical trajectory.); and coordinating the adjustment of the control surfaces and a reduction in power to a propulsion system of the aircraft (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 41-46: In initiating the desired steep descent, the flying speed of the aircraft is reduced by decreasing engine thrust to an airspeed just above stall conditions. Then the aircraft nose is pulled up in the conventional manner to initiate stall of the wing 64. Spoilers 78 on the stabilizer 68 are actuated to cause the stabilizer to stall.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have actuated, in response to determining the failure state of the flight module, the rudders of the UAV of Dormiani to rotate and raise the aircraft’s nose, after decreasing thrust, to induce a deep stall, as disclosed by Roberts, with the motivation of controlling low velocity descent at angles approaching the vertical while simultaneously maintaining the fuselage in a desirable, slightly nose-up attitude from the horizontal (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 36-40) thereby allowing the UAV to use small or undeveloped landing zones (Roberts; col. 1, ll. 56-57).
Dormiani, as modified, does not explicitly disclose adjusting the control surface of each stabilizer from the first angle to the second angle, at which the control surface is substantially perpendicular to the fixed portion of the stabilizer, based on detecting the control tier failure at the UAV.
Prager, in the same field of endeavor (UAV controls), discloses adjusting a control surface of each stabilizer of a plurality of stabilizers from a first angle to a second angle, at which the control surface is substantially perpendicular to a UAV’s direction of flight, based on detecting a control tier failure at a UAV (Prager; para. 126: When the UAV experiences a system failure and/or the motors stop working, the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees (or angles in between) to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight to reduce lift and move the center of pressure of the UAV towards, or in alignment with, the center of gravity of the UAV). Prager further discloses coordinating the adjustment of the control surfaces and a reduction in power to a propulsion system of the UAV (Prager; para. 126: When the UAV experiences a system failure and/or the motors stop working, the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees).
The leading edges of the stabilizers of both Dormiani and Prager are conventionally aligned in the flight direction of the UAV during nominal flying conditions. Additionally, Prager discloses, in paragraph 42, that the stabilizers that are deployed to 90° in response to a failure may be rudders in some embodiments. A rudder is, by definition, a moving section of a rear stabilizer that is attached to the fixed section by hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have actuated the rudders, attached to the fixed stabilizers that are aligned with the direction of flight, of the UAV of Dormiani, as modified, to deploy to 90° with respect to the direction of flight in response to a system and/or motor failure, as disclosed by Prager, with the motivation of reducing lift and moving the center of pressure of the UAV towards, or in alignment with, the center of gravity of the UAV (Prager; para. 126) thereby providing for a soft landing in the event of a system failure and/or the motors stop working (Prager; para. 129).
Dormiani, as modified, does not explicitly disclose coordinating a triggering of the plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate with the adjustment of the control surfaces and the reduction in power to the propulsion system of the UAV.
Durov, in the same field of endeavor (VTOL and/or STOL aircraft controls), discloses coordinating a triggering of a plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate with an adjustment of control surfaces and a reduction in power to a propulsion system of an aircraft (Durov; para. 13: disconnecting from the transmission in horizontal high-speed flight any redundant turbofan engine and any one in the event of its failure or both turbofan engines in the event of their failure, a control signal for the automatic change of the flight configuration into a helicopter or a winged autogyro for an emergency landing, respectively, with two loaded or autorotating rotors, wherein the deflection of the said flaps on the KOS is performed automatically to a minimum or maximum angle and changes accordingly from the speed, flight altitude or in the emergency landing mode with autorotating rotors with the feathering position of the smaller rotors with simultaneous automatic accelerated downward deflection of both the corresponding flaps and in-phase downward deflection of the V-shaped stabilizer elevators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the coordinated control of the stabilizer control surface movements and engine thrust decrease of Dormiani, as modified, to include automatically changing the flight configuration for an emergency landing with autorotating rotors, with the motivation of reducing the rate of descent to soften the emergency landing (Durov; para. 13).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the pair of stabilizers that are arranged in the V-shape configuration form a V-tail of the UAV, and wherein each stabilizer extends in a vertical diagonal direction away from a longitudinal axis of the fuselage (Dormiani; fig. 1A: stabilizers 1108).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 16, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the UAV further comprises: a first boom coupled to a first wing of the pair of wings, wherein the first boom extends in a direction substantially parallel to the fuselage of the UAV and perpendicular to the first wing; and a second boom coupled to a second wing of the pair of wings, wherein second boom extends in the direction substantially parallel to the fuselage of the UAV and perpendicular to the second wing (Dormiani; para. 38: a pair of rotor supports 1110 extend beneath the wings), wherein a first stabilizer of the pair of stabilizers is coupled to an end of the first boom that is positioned relative to a rear of the fuselage and a second stabilizer of the pair of stabilizers is coupled to an end of the second boom that is positioned relative to the rear of the fuselage, and wherein the first stabilizer and the second stabilizer are physically separate (Dormiani; fig. 1A: stabilizers 1108).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Dormiani, as modified, discloses a first plurality of hover rotors coupled to the first boom and a second plurality of hover rotors coupled to the second boom (Dormiani; para. 38: In the UAS 1100a, a pair of rotor supports 1110 extend beneath the wings 1106, and a plurality of rotors 1112 are attached rotor supports 1110. Rotors 1110 may be used during a hover mode), wherein the computing device is configured to trigger the first plurality of hover rotors and the second plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate in response to detecting the control tier failure at the UAV (Durov; para. 13: disconnecting from the transmission in horizontal high-speed flight any redundant turbofan engine and any one in the event of its failure or both turbofan engines in the event of their failure, a control signal for the automatic change of the flight configuration into a helicopter or a winged autogyro for an emergency landing, respectively, with two loaded or autorotating rotors, wherein the deflection of the said flaps on the KOS is performed automatically to a minimum or maximum angle and changes accordingly from the speed, flight altitude or in the emergency landing mode with autorotating rotors with the feathering position of the smaller rotors with simultaneous automatic accelerated downward deflection of both the corresponding flaps and in-phase downward deflection of the V-shaped stabilizer elevators).
Regarding claim 9, Dormiani, as modified, discloses a sensor coupled to the UAV, wherein the computing device is configured to detect the control tier failure of the UAV based on sensor data provided by the sensor (Dormiani; para. 124: a sensor may determine the failure. For instance, an orientation sensor may determine that aerial vehicle 600 is tilting towards the inoperable propellers of control zone 614. In response, one or more CAN controllers may send control signals to flight modules associated with control zones 610, 612, 616, and 618 that instruct the flight modules to compensate for the inoperable propellers and to slowly descend the aerial vehicle for landing).
Regarding claim 12, Dormiani, as modified, discloses each control surface is adjustable across a range of angles comprising the first angle and the second angle (Prager; para. 126: the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees (or angles in between)).
Regarding claim 21, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the V-shape configuration of the pair of stabilizers maintains directional stability during the deep stall condition (Dormiani; para. 38: Stabilizers 1108 (or fins) may also be attached to the UAS 1110a to stabilize the UAS's yaw (turn left or right) during flight [e.g., during a deep stall condition].).
Regarding claim 22, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the computing device is configured to dynamically adjust a rate of control surface movement based on real-time feedback from one or more sensors during the adjustment from the first angle to the second angle (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 58-63: Operation of the system can be manual, remote or programmed to set either type aircraft into the required pre-stall attitude and to actuate the stabilizer or engine nacelle pivoting mechanism as the aircraft requires in order to initiate deep stall and then to maintain control in all axes.).
Claim(s) 8, 10-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormiani in view of Roberts, Prager and Durov as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Gillett et al. (US 2021/0107625), hereinafter Gillette.
Regarding claim 8, Dormiani, as modified, discloses determining an altitude of the UAV (Dormiani; para. 57: UAS 200 may also include a pressure sensor or barometer, which can be used to determine the altitude of the UAS 200. Alternatively, other sensors, such as sonic altimeters or radar altimeters, can be used to provide an indication of altitude) and selecting the second angle (Prager; para. 126: When the UAV experiences a system failure and/or the motors stop working, the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees (or angles in between) to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight).
It is unclear if Dormiani, as modified, explicitly discloses determining a speed of the UAV, and selecting the second angle based on the speed and the altitude of the UAV.
However, Gillette, in the same field of endeavor (aircraft stability control), discloses determining a speed of an aircraft, and selecting a stabilizer angle based on the speed and the altitude of the aircraft (Gillett; para. 16: To achieve the minimum drag position, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can take into account at least the airspeed of the rotorcraft 101, a measured pitch attitude of the rotorcraft 101, and angle of attack of the aircraft 101, and altitude of the aircraft 101, and any other suitable information. In some cases, the above-described information can be utilized to query the horizontal stabilizer lookup table 212 to receive predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150. After receiving the predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can control the horizontal stabilizer actuators 154 to rotate the horizontal stabilizers 150 to the received predetermined position values.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination of the rudder angles in the CAN controller of Dormiani, as modified, to account for the altitude and airspeed of the aircraft, as disclosed by Gillette, to yield the predictable result of accurately controlling the descent of the UAV.
Regarding claim 10, Dormiani, as modified, discloses determining the second angle based on a weight of the UAV (Roberts; col. 4, ll. 1-8: The angle 28 of the stabilizer surface 20' and thus the magnitude and direction of force it produces are controllable … So by manipulation of these forces, the operator can in effect close the force polygon 58 and provide vertical and horizontal stability as the plane moves along its downward path 54.; col. 4, ll. 53-53: the weight force 48 acts vertically downward through the center of gravity).
It is unclear if Dormiani, as modified, explicitly discloses determining the second angle based on an altitude and a speed.
However, Gillette discloses determining a stabilizer angle based on an altitude and a speed of an aircraft (Gillett; para. 16: To achieve the minimum drag position, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can take into account at least the airspeed of the rotorcraft 101, a measured pitch attitude of the rotorcraft 101, and angle of attack of the aircraft 101, and altitude of the aircraft 101, and any other suitable information. In some cases, the above-described information can be utilized to query the horizontal stabilizer lookup table 212 to receive predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150. After receiving the predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can control the horizontal stabilizer actuators 154 to rotate the horizontal stabilizers 150 to the received predetermined position values.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination of the rudder angles in the CAN controller of Dormiani, as modified, to account for the altitude and airspeed, as disclosed by Gillette, to yield the predictable result of accurately controlling the descent of the UAV.
Regarding claim 11, Dormiani, as modified, discloses determining the second angle based on wind conditions of an environment of the UAV (Gillett; para. 16: To achieve the minimum drag position, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can take into account at least the airspeed [i.e., the speed of an aircraft, measured against the speed of the air through which it is moving] of the rotorcraft).
Regarding claim 19, Dormiani, as modified, discloses determining an altitude of the UAV (Dormiani; para. 57: UAS 200 may also include a pressure sensor or barometer, which can be used to determine the altitude of the UAS 200. Alternatively, other sensors, such as sonic altimeters or radar altimeters, can be used to provide an indication of altitude) and selecting the second angle (Prager; para. 126: When the UAV experiences a system failure and/or the motors stop working, the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees (or angles in between) to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight) and selecting the second angle based on the weight of the UAV (Roberts; col. 4, ll. 1-8: The angle 28 of the stabilizer surface 20' and thus the magnitude and direction of force it produces are controllable … So by manipulation of these forces, the operator can in effect close the force polygon 58 and provide vertical and horizontal stability as the plane moves along its downward path 54.; col. 4, ll. 53-53: the weight force 48 acts vertically downward through the center of gravity).
Dormiani, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining a speed, and a weight of the UAV; and selecting the second angle based on the speed and the altitude of the UAV.
Gillette discloses determining a speed, and a weight of an aircraft; and selecting a stabilizer angle based on the speed, altitude (Gillett; para. 16: To achieve the minimum drag position, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can take into account at least the airspeed of the rotorcraft 101, a measured pitch attitude of the rotorcraft 101, and angle of attack of the aircraft 101, and altitude of the aircraft 101, and any other suitable information. In some cases, the above-described information can be utilized to query the horizontal stabilizer lookup table 212 to receive predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150. After receiving the predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can control the horizontal stabilizer actuators 154 to rotate the horizontal stabilizers 150 to the received predetermined position values.), and the weight of the aircraft (Gillett; para. 29: a horizontal stabilizer position lookup table is constructed specific to a particular rotorcraft and/or a particular configuration or weight distribution of the rotorcraft cargo so that the lookup table is based around a particular center of gravity for the entire loaded rotorcraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination of the rudder angles in the CAN controller of Dormiani, as modified, to account for the determined altitude, airspeed, and weight, as disclosed by Gillette, to yield the predictable result of accurately controlling the descent of the UAV.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights