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 . Claims 1-19 have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an information acquisition unit configured to ... ” in claims 1-2.
“an information processing unit configured to ... ” in claims 1 and 3-6.
“a path planner configured to ... ” in claims 1, 7-8, and 19 .
“a flight controller configured to ... ” in claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Page 7, paragraph 2 of the specification recites “an autonomous flight system 100 of a drone unit 200 according to an example embodiment includes an information acquisition unit 110, an information processing unit 120, a path planner 130, and a flight controller 140”. Accordingly, the “an information acquisition unit”, “an information processing unit”, “a path planner”, and “a flight controller” are interpreted as comprising both hardware and software of the flight system.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (US 2017/0301111 A1) (Zhao hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses an autonomous flight system of a drone unit for unmanned exploration and reconnaissance, the autonomous flight system comprising:
an information acquisition unit configured to acquire first information through a camera mounted to the drone unit, to acquire second information through light detection and ranging (LiDAR), and to acquire third information through an inertial measurement unit (IMU) ([0090], state estimation is performed based on sensor data obtained by one or more sensors. Exemplary sensors suitable for use with the embodiments disclosed herein include location sensor (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) sensors, mobile device transmitters enabling location triangulation), image or vision sensors (e.g., imaging devices capable of detecting visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light, such as cameras), proximity or range sensors (e.g., ultrasonic sensors, lidar, time-of-flight or depth cameras), inertial sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes, inertial measurement units (IMUs)), altitude sensors, attitude sensors (e.g., compasses) pressure sensors (e.g., barometers), audio sensors (e.g., microphones) or field sensors (e.g., magnetometers, electromagnetic sensors));
an information processing unit configured to estimate a pose of the drone unit through the second information and the third information ([0099], in step 506, the extrinsic parameter calibration and state estimation is performed for a current time point, e.g., to determine UAV position, orientation, velocity, relative positions and orientations of UAV sensors, etc.), to acquire a coordinate value of a target object through the first information and the second information, and to construct a three-dimensional (3D) map and an unknown area exploration algorithm based on a pose estimation value of the drone unit, the coordinate value of the target object, and the second information ([0103], a camera can be used to generate 2D images of a 3D scene ... velocity, etc.);
a path planner configured to generate an obstacle avoidance path based on the 3D map and the unknown area exploration algorithm; and a flight controller configured to apply the obstacle avoidance path to the drone unit ([0111], the flight control module 640 can use the sensor fusion results generated by the sensor fusion module 630 in order to determine control signals for the UAV. The control signals can be used to control operation of one or more UAV components, such as one or more propulsion units, one or more sensors, one or more payloads, one or more communication modules, and so on. In some embodiments, the control signals are used to effect autonomous or semi-autonomous UAV operation, e.g., for navigation, obstacle avoidance, route planning, environmental mapping, and the like).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses the autonomous flight system of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the first information related to target object recognition through the camera, to acquire the second information for pose estimation of the drone unit and map generation through the LiDAR, and to acquire the third information related to real-time angular velocity and acceleration information of the drone unit through the IMU ([0088], the state information can include information regarding a spatial disposition of the UAV (e.g., location or position information such as longitude, latitude, and/or altitude, orientation or attitude information such as roll, pitch, and/or yaw). The state information can also include information regarding motion of the UAV (e.g., translational velocity, translation acceleration, angular velocity, angular acceleration, etc.)).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses the autonomous flight system of claim 2, as stated above, wherein the information processing unit is configured to acquire the coordinate value of the target object by recognizing the target object that is a target through the first information and by computing coordinates of the target object from the first information and the second information ([0088], the state information may be provided relative to a global coordinate system or relative to a local coordinate system (e.g., relative to the UAV or another entity)).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao discloses the autonomous flight system of claim 3, as stated above, wherein the information processing unit is configured to modify a target point of the drone unit by estimating the pose of the drone unit and by correcting a pose estimation error using the second information, the third information, and the 3D map ([0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao discloses the autonomous flight system of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the path planner is configured to generate the obstacle avoidance path by searching for a sampling-based shortest distance based on the 3D map and the unknown area exploration algorithm and by modifying a path to avoid an obstacle in a narrow area ([0103]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao discloses the autonomous flight system of claim 7, as stated above, wherein the flight controller is configured to control a flight movement of the drone unit according to the obstacle avoidance path generated by the path planner ([0111]).
Regarding claim 9, the elements contained in claim 9 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 1, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a drone unit rather than a flight system and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Regarding claim 10, Zhao discloses the drone unit of claim 9, as stated above, wherein the drone unit comprises:
a drone frame; a body provided at the center of the drone frame and equipped with the camera, the LiDAR and the IMU, the memory and the controller; a combined propeller guard connected to the drone frame and representing a square shape based on the body; a propeller attached downward to each of four arms of the drone frame and configured to generate thrust for flight; and a landing gear provided at a lower end of each of four corners of the drone frame and configured to couple to the combined propeller guard (Fig. 17 illustrates a UAV).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao discloses the drone unit of claim 10, as stated above, wherein the combined propeller guard is configured to absorb shock by combining an elastic material at the center of each of four sides of the square shape ([0091]).
Regarding claims 12-15 and 18-19, the elements contained in claims 12-15 and 18-19 are substantially similar to elements presented in claims 1-4 and 7-8, respectively, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a method rather than a flight system and are rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Huynh whose telephone number is 571-270-5746. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 8-5, Tues 8-12, Thurs & Fri 8-2.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/LUKE HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
03/30/2026