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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Regarding claims 6 and 16, recite the limitation “wherein when the current position of the current position is not included in the safe position list” in line 5 with emphasis underlined. The underlined limitation appears to be a repeat of “the current position”. Please review.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claims 11, 14, 16 and 18, recites the limitation “it” in multiple locations. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is referring to.
Regarding claims 12-20, are also rejected because they depend on claim 11.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub. No.: US 2020/0108945 A1) in view of Buer (Pub. No.: US 2009/0085761 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Abstract, UAV with disassembly detection), comprising:
a casing, having at least one casing assembly (Fig. 5, para [0070], “In some embodiments, the upper body cover and the lower body cover may also be a left body cover and a right body cover, or a front body cover and a rear body cover, which is not limited in the present embodiment.”. The UAV has upper, lower, left and right body cover.); and
a dismantling status determination system (abstract, Fig. 1 – Fig. 4, ), comprising:
a dismantling detection unit, disposed on the at least one casing assembly of the unmanned aerial vehicle to provide a body status information according to whether the at least one casing assembly is detached (para [0069], “In one embodiment, the body state sensor may include a light sensor and a limit sensor. More specifically, one or more light sensors and limit sensors may be used. FIG. 5 is a diagram of positions of a light sensor and a limit sensor according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 5, when the disassembly operation has not been performed on the UAV, the upper body cover and the lower body cover may be in a close state. When the disassembly operation has been performed on the UAV, the upper body cover and the lower body cover may be in an open state.”. The UAV determines whether one for the covers has been dissembled based on the body state sensor.);
a storage unit (Fig. 9, memory 50, para [0104], “the memory 50 may be configured to record that the current state reset of the UAV is authorized by the authorizer the based on the identification information”); and
a processing unit, coupled to the dismantling detection unit, and the storage unit (Fig. 9, the controller 20 is coupled to the body state sensor 40 and memory 50), wherein when the processing unit determines that the at least one casing assembly is in a dismantling status according to the body status information (Fig. 1 – Fig. 4 and para [0078], “The controller 20 may be configured to determine whether the disassembly operation is an unauthorized disassembly operation.”), the processing unit determines whether the current position is included in the safe position list;
wherein when the disassembly is not performed at an authorized location, such as a manufacturer, a dealer, or a repairer, the processing unit determines that the dismantling status corresponds to an illegal dismantling action (Fig. 1 – Fig. 4, para [0022], “After determining that the disassembly operation is the unauthorized disassembly operation, it may indicate that the disassembly operation is not an official (e.g., a manufacturer, a dealer, or a repairer of the unmanned vehicle) disassembly operation.”).
Liu fails to teach a position detection unit, for detecting a current position of the unmanned aerial vehicle;
a storage unit, for storing a safe position list; and
the processing unit determines whether the current position is included in the safe position list;
wherein when the current position is not included in the safe position list, the processing unit determines that the dismantling status corresponds to an illegal dismantling action.
However, in the same field tamper detection, Buer teaches a GPS module 250 that is configured to determine the current location of the terminal 220A (analogous to an UAV), a storage 230 that stores geographic usage policy 224 of the allowable geographic area 110 for the terminal and to determine whether the terminal is currently located within the allowable geographic area to perform a corresponding action. See abstract, Fig. 4, para [0038] – [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s UAV tamper detection system with Buer’s geographical determination system to store the geographical areas of the authorized officials and to determine whether the UAV is being disassembled within the geographical area of the authorized officials to improve safety.
Regarding claim 2, Buer in the combination teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the safe position list is modifiable (para [0026], “For example, a terminal owner/user may define a geographic usage zone to be a building, a specific area within a building, or an indoor/outdoor area (e.g., gas station, restaurant with outdoor seating, etc).”).
Regarding claim 4, Buer in the combination teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a signal receiver, for receiving a control signal provided by a controller (Fig. 2A, GPS module 250 and/or communication module 245);
wherein the processing unit is further coupled to the signal receiver and determines whether the intensity of the control signal is less than a threshold;
wherein when the current position cannot be detected and the intensity of the control signal is less than the threshold, the processing unit determines that the dismantling status corresponds to the illegal dismantling action (Fig. 4, para [0031], “Tamper identification logic module 226 is configured to detect violations of a geographic usage policy 224. Tamper identification logic module 226 receives from GPS module 250 geographic position data or data that can be used to determine position and compares it to the criteria specified by the geographic usage policy 224 for the terminal. In embodiments, if a position is not received from GPS module, tamper identification module 226 includes logic to use the received data to determine a position.”. The terminal/UAV uses GPS or received data to determine its location. If the terminal/UAV cannot receive GPS signal and cannot receive the received data then the terminal/UAV cannot determine its location is within the allowable geographic zone at step 420. Therefore, the disassembly is unauthorized).
Regarding claim 5, Buer in the combination teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 4, wherein when the current position is included in the safe position list or the intensity of the control signal is not less than the threshold, the processing unit determines that the dismantling status corresponds to a legal dismantling action (Fig. 4 steps 410 – 425 show if the terminal/UAV is located within the allowable geographic zone according to its GPS location, then the disassembly is authorized.).
Regarding claim 6, Buer in the combination teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a signal receiver, for receiving a control signal provided by a controller (Fig. 2A, GPS module 250 and/or communication module 245);
wherein the processing unit is further coupled to the signal receiver and determines whether the intensity of the control signal is less than a threshold;
wherein when the current position of the current position is not included in the safe position list and the intensity of the control signal is less than the threshold, the processing unit determines that the dismantling status corresponds to the illegal dismantling action (Fig. 4, step 420, and para [0031], “Tamper identification logic module 226 is configured to detect violations of a geographic usage policy 224. Tamper identification logic module 226 receives from GPS module 250 geographic position data or data that can be used to determine position and compares it to the criteria specified by the geographic usage policy 224 for the terminal. In embodiments, if a position is not received from GPS module, tamper identification module 226 includes logic to use the received data to determine a position.”. If the terminal/UAV is located outside of the allowable geographic zone according to the GPS at step 240 and cannot receive the received data then the disassembly is unauthorized.).
Regarding claim 7, Buer in the combination teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 6, wherein when the current position is included in the safe position list or the intensity of the control signal is not less than the threshold, the processing unit determines that the dismantling status corresponds to a legal dismantling action (Fig. 4 steps 410 – 425 show if the terminal/UAV is located within the allowable geographic zone according to its GPS location, then the disassembly is authorized.).
Regarding claim 8, Buer in the combination teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the processing unit determines that the dismantling status corresponds to the illegal dismantling action, the processing unit erases the data stored in the storage unit and/or any storage device of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Fig. 4, step 440 and para [0044], “In step 440, secure processor 260, 360 erases information from the terminal. In an embodiment, the geographic usage policy 324 includes details on what information is to be deleted from the terminal if a possible tamper evident is detected. In an alternative embodiment, the entire contents of storage 230 are erased.”. Erase data if the terminal/UAV is located outside of the allowable geographic zone).
Regarding claim 10, Liu in the combination teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the at least one casing assembly is used to accommodate the storage unit and/or any storage device of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Fig. 9, the UVA accommodates the memory 50), or the at least one casing assembly is used to accommodate a data transmission port via which data stored in the storage unit and/or the storage device can be accessed.
Regarding claim 11, recites a method for the system of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, recites a method for the system of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, recites a method for the system of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, recites a method for the system of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, recites a method for the system of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, recites a method for the system of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, recites a method for the system of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, recites a method for the system of claim 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub. No.: US 2020/0108945 A1) in view of Buer (Pub. No.: US 2009/0085761 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Jin (Pub. No.: US 2015/0097558 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Liu in the combination teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the dismantling detection unit is implemented by light and limit sensor disposed on the one of two mutually detachable components of the at least one casing assembly (Fig. 5, shows the light sensor and limit sensor are disposed on the lower cover), wherein when the two components are apart from each other, the dismantling detection unit senses the change in light intensity of the light sensor and mechanical position of limit sensor then provides the body status information (para [0064]-[0066]).
Liu teaches the use of light and/or limit sensor instead of Hall sensor for disassembly detection.
However, in the same field of opening detection, Jin teaches the use of Hall sensor 100 to detect opening of a cover 200. See abstract, Fig. 1A-1B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Buer’s body state sensor with a Hall sensor in improve accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685