Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 and 5/28/2025 were filed before the first action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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:
A flight control device configured to control… (claims 1-10, 13)
A maintaining determination unit configured to…determine (claims 1-3, 6, 10)
An output adjustment unit configured to…perform output adjustment (claims 1-3, 5-7)
A driving continuation unit configured to…continue driving (claims 2, 5, 10)
An excessively-large-output determination unit configured to…determine (claims 3, 5)
A decrease continuation unit configured to…continue driving (claims 3-4)
A driving stop unit configured to continuously continue driving (claim 6)
An evacuation request unit configured to request (claims 7-9)
A landing request unit configured to request (claim 8)
A search request unit configured to request (claim 9)
A stop determination unit configured to determine (claim 10)
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.
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
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, 6-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20180072430 by Misfeldt (hereinafter “Misfeldt”).
Regarding claim 1, Misfeldt teaches A flight control device configured to control driving of a plurality of flight-motors to maintain an electric flight vehicle, which includes the flight-motors, at a stable attitude, see for example paragraphs [0021] and [0029]-[0030], where the system seeks minimize changes in thrust or altitude for multi-rotor aircraft.
the flight control device comprising: a maintaining determination unit configured to, when an abnormality occurs in the flight-motors, determine whether the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude for at least one of a state in which, among the flight-motors, an abnormal motor, in which the abnormality occurs, stops driving or a state in which the abnormal motor continues driving; see for example paragraphs [0029]-[0030] and [0032]-[0033], where the system detects a motor abnormality that could result in a change in thrust or altitude.
and an output adjustment unit configured to, based on determination that the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude, perform output adjustment of, among the flight-motors, at least one of a normal motor, in which the abnormality does not occur, or the abnormal motor to maintain the electric flight vehicle at the stable attitude. See again paragraphs [0029]-[0030], [0032]-[0033], and [0039], where upon detecting a motor abnormality the system proceeds to compensate for it in order to minimize changes in thrust and in altitude by either ramping down or deactivating the abnormal motor while also compensating for its thrust in the functional motors.
Claims 11-13 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Misfeldt teaches wherein the output adjustment unit includes a driving stop unit configured to stop driving of the abnormal motor, when the maintaining determination unit determines that the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude in the state in which the abnormal motor stops driving. See again paragraphs [0029]-[0030], [0032]-[0033], and [0039], where upon detecting a motor abnormality the system can compensate for it in order to minimize changes in thrust and in altitude by deactivating the abnormal motor while also compensating for its change in thrust using the functional motors.
Regarding claim 7, Misfeldt teaches a system further comprising: an evacuation request unit configured to request evacuation of the electric flight vehicle, when the electric flight vehicle is not capable of flying while maintaining at the stable attitude even when the output adjustment unit performs the output adjustment. See for example paragraph [0030], where the aircraft can determine an appropriate flight plan based on the state of the failed motor, including an emergency landing.
Regarding claim 9, Misfeldt teaches wherein the evacuation request unit includes a search request unit configured to request a search for a landing possible location, at which the electric flight vehicle is capable of landing, when the landing possible location does not exist below the electric flight vehicle or when the electric flight vehicle is not capable of maintaining the stable attitude in a case where the electric flight vehicle vertically lands. See for example paragraph [0030], where the aircraft can determine an appropriate flight plan based on the state of the failed motor, including an emergency landing, reading at least on search[ing] for a landing possible location…when the electric flight vehicle is not capable of maintaining the stable attitude in a case where the electric flight vehicle vertically lands.
Regarding claim 10, Misfeldt teaches wherein the maintaining determination unit includes a stop determination unit configured to determine whether the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude in the state in which the abnormal motor stops driving, and a continuation determination unit configured to determine whether the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude in the state in which the abnormal motor continues driving. See again paragraphs [0029]-[0030], [0032]-[0033], and [0039], where upon detecting a motor abnormality the system proceeds to compensate for it in order to minimize changes in thrust and in altitude by either ramping down or deactivating the abnormal motor while also compensating for its thrust in the functional motors, and in paragraph [0037] the compensatory thrust maintains stable flight throughout the process.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misfeldt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20220130264 by Krawiec et al. (hereinafter “Krawiec”).
Regarding claim 2, Misfeldt does not explicitly teach, but Krawiec suggests wherein the output adjustment unit includes a driving continuation unit configured to, as the output adjustment, continue driving of the abnormal motor, when the maintaining determination unit determines that the electric flight vehicle is not capable of maintaining the stable attitude in the state in which the abnormal motor stops driving. See for example paragraph [0053], where the system can determine that the aircraft can maintain altitude in spite of a damaged (abnormal) motor by using the partial thrust of the damaged motor.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-rotor aircraft compensation system of Misfeldt with the altitude maintaining system of Krawiec with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to maintain the altitude and flight of an aircraft in spite of an abnormal motor.
Regarding claim 3, Misfeldt teaches further comprising: an excessively-large-output determination unit configured to, excessively large. See for example paragraph [0028], where the system will take corrective action for a motor whose output speed is higher than expected, and can reduce power to the motor. See also paragraph [0033], where corrective action can be reduction in power rather than turning off the motor.
Misfeldt does not explicitly teach that the system should, when the maintaining determination unit determines that the electric flight vehicle is not capable of maintaining the stable attitude in the state in which the abnormal motor stops driving, determine whether an output of the abnormal motor is excessively large.
However, Krawiec suggests that the system should, when the maintaining determination unit determines that the electric flight vehicle is not capable of maintaining the stable attitude in the state in which the abnormal motor stops driving, determine whether an output of the abnormal motor is excessively large. See for example paragraph [0053], where the system can determine that the aircraft can maintain altitude in spite of a damaged (abnormal) motor by using the partial thrust of the damaged motor.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-rotor aircraft compensation system of Misfeldt with the altitude maintaining system of Krawiec with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to maintain the altitude and flight of an aircraft in spite of an abnormal motor.
Regarding claim 5, Misfeldt teaches wherein the output adjustment unit includes a continuous driving unit configured to continuously continue driving of the abnormal motor, when the excessively-large-output determination unit determines that the output is not excessively large. See for example paragraph [0028], where the system will take corrective action for a motor whose output speed is lower than expected, and can reduce power to the motor. See also paragraph [0033], where corrective action can be reduction in power rather than turning off the motor.
Regarding claim 8, Misfeldt teaches wherein the evacuation request unit includes a landing request unit configured to request the electric flight vehicle to vertically land at a landing possible location, at which the electric flight vehicle is capable of landing, when the landing possible location exists below the electric flight vehicle . See for example paragraph [0030], where the aircraft can determine an appropriate flight plan based on the state of the failed motor, including an emergency landing.
Misfeldt does not explicitly teach landing when the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude in a case where the electric flight vehicle vertically lands.
However, Krawiec suggests landing when the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude in a case where the electric flight vehicle vertically lands. See for example paragraphs [0092], where the aircraft can land at an emergency landing location with a stable attitude.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-rotor aircraft compensation system of Misfeldt with the altitude maintaining system of Krawiec with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to maintain the altitude and flight of an aircraft in spite of an abnormal motor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misfeldt in view of Krawiec as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US20100027979 by Matsunaga et al. (hereinafter “Matsunaga”).
Regarding claim 4, Misfeldt teaches wherein the decrease continuation unit is configured to . See for example paragraph [0028], where the system will take corrective action for a motor whose output speed is higher than expected, and can reduce power to the motor. See also paragraph [0033], where corrective action can be reduction in power rather than turning off the motor.
Misfeldt does not explicitly teach running the motor intermittently to reduce its output.
However, Matsunaga suggests intermittently driving an abnormal motor to decrease its output. See for example paragraphs [0010]-[0013], where the system intermittently outputs a PWM voltage in order to reduce the output speed of the motor to match the target speed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-rotor aircraft compensation system of Misfeldt, modified by the altitude maintaining system of Krawiec, with the intermittent motor system of Matsunaga with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to reduce the rotational speed of a motor by simply applying a voltage intermittently.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20190263275 by Baba et al. teaching intermittent driving of a vehicle motor.
US20190256191 by Suzuki et al. teaching a multi-rotor control system that compensates for motor failure.
US20220340260 by Krzywon teaching mitigation of propeller failure in aircraft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666