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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 § 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 1, 6-7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180072430 by Misfeldt (hereinafter “Misfeldt”), further in view of US20210339882 by Ferrier et al. (hereinafter “Ferrier”).
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; in particular, paragraph [0029] describes compensatory thrust to prevent “a sudden loss in altitude or change in orientation due to shutting down the motor…. The flight computer is also configured to take into account a net torque on the rotorcraft due to the reduction of power to one of its motors” (emphasis added), where such changes in orientation and net torque reflect conventional control systems’ maintaining of roll, pitch, and yaw, reading on attitude.
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 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 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.
Misfeldt does not explicitly teach that the system should determine whether the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude. Misfeldt generally teaches a system that controls the aircraft (including its attitude), and does teach that the system makes decisions based on its ability (or inability) to maintain a stable altitude (see paragraph [0030]). However, Misfeldt does not explicitly teach that the aircraft determines its ability to maintain a stable attitude.
However, Ferrier teaches a system including 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 for example [0038], where the aircraft can detect a malfunctioning rotor. See also paragraph [0037], where the term “flight maneuver” includes “regulation of altitude, roll, pitch, yaw”. Then in paragraph [0039], the system determines failure datum based on the fact that the aircraft’s systems for performing “one or more flight maneuvers as described above, is unable to function correctly.” Then in paragraphs [0050]-[0051], mitigating responses include “a first alternative control algorithm to maintain attitude when a single lift propulsor is compromised or non-functional, as second alternative control algorithm applicable where two lift propulsors have failed” and “may also include altering a flight path of the aircraft; this may include, without limitation, selection of an alternative landing site and/or procedure, modification of a flight route to avoid an obstacle, such as going around a high object rather than attempting to lift above it, selection of an emergency landing location and/or process, or the like”. Thus, Ferrier describes detecting an inability to regulate roll, pitch, or yaw (attitude), and describes alternative control algorithms to maintain attitude, or else landing the aircraft. See also, e.g., paragraph [0133], describing responses based on an inability to maintain an adequate roll-pitch plane.
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 attitude detection and compensation system of Ferrier 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.
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.
Regarding claim 14, Misfeldt teaches wherein the maintaining determination unit is configured to, on the assumption that driving of the abnormal motor is stopped, determine whether the electric flight vehicle can be maintained at the stable . See again paragraphs [0029]-[0030], where the aircraft determines that a motor is malfunctioning and compensates accordingly, including by deactivating the motor, and determines if the aircraft can maintain flight while the motor is stopped.
Misfeldt does not explicitly teach that the system should determine whether the electric flight vehicle is capable of maintaining the stable attitude. Misfeldt generally teaches a system that controls the aircraft (including its attitude), and does teach that the system makes decisions based on its ability (or inability) to maintain a stable altitude (see paragraph [0030]). However, Misfeldt does not explicitly teach that the aircraft determines its ability to maintain a stable attitude.
However, Ferrier teaches a system including determine whether the electric flight vehicle can be maintained at the stable attitude. See for example [0038], where the aircraft can detect a malfunctioning rotor. See also paragraph [0037], where the term “flight maneuver” includes “regulation of altitude, roll, pitch, yaw”. Then in paragraph [0039], the system determines failure datum based on the fact that the aircraft’s systems for performing “one or more flight maneuvers as described above, is unable to function correctly.” Then in paragraphs [0050]-[0051], mitigating responses include “a first alternative control algorithm to maintain attitude when a single lift propulsor is compromised or non-functional, as second alternative control algorithm applicable where two lift propulsors have failed” and “may also include altering a flight path of the aircraft; this may include, without limitation, selection of an alternative landing site and/or procedure, modification of a flight route to avoid an obstacle, such as going around a high object rather than attempting to lift above it, selection of an emergency landing location and/or process, or the like”. Thus, Ferrier describes detecting an inability to regulate roll, pitch, or yaw (attitude), and describes alternative control algorithms to maintain attitude, or else landing the aircraft. See also, e.g., paragraph [0133], describing responses based on an inability to maintain an adequate roll-pitch plane.
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 attitude detection and compensation system of Ferrier 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 15, Misfeldt teaches wherein the normal motor information is at least one of information indicating a driving state of all of the normal motors, information indicating a magnitude of a current output of all of the normal motors, or a maximum output that can be output by all of the normal motors, and the abnormal motor information is at least one of a position of the abnormal motor, a number of the abnormal motors, information indicating stop of driving of the abnormal motor, information indicating continuation of driving of the abnormal motor, or information indicating output of the abnormal motor. See for example paragraphs [0027] and [0035], where the system measures, among other things, rotor speed of all rotors (functioning and non-functioning) as a means of measuring motor health, reading at least on information indicating a driving state of all of the normal motors and information indicating a magnitude of a current output of all of the normal motors, as well as information indicating stop of driving of the abnormal motor, information indicating continuation of driving of the abnormal motor, or information indicating output of the abnormal motor.
Regarding claim 16, Misfeldt does not explicitly teach, but Ferrier does teach wherein the maintaining determination unit is configured to, when the abnormal motor is present, determine whether the electric flight vehicle can be maintained at the stable attitude by increasing or decreasing output of the normal motor, which is on a same side as the abnormal motor in the electric flight vehicle, for at least one of a state, in which driving of the abnormal motor is stopped, or a state, in which driving of the abnormal motor is continued, without manipulating to stop or to continue driving of the abnormal motor. See for example [0038], where the aircraft can detect a malfunctioning rotor. Then in paragraphs [0050]-[0051], mitigating responses include “a first alternative control algorithm to maintain attitude when a single lift propulsor is compromised or non-functional, as second alternative control algorithm applicable where two lift propulsors have failed” and “may also include altering a flight path of the aircraft; this may include, without limitation, selection of an alternative landing site and/or procedure, modification of a flight route to avoid an obstacle, such as going around a high object rather than attempting to lift above it, selection of an emergency landing location and/or process, or the like”. See also paragraph [0099], where mitigation responses include power to functioning propulsors being increased. See also, e.g., Figures 9A and 9B, where the aircraft mitigates for rotor failure on the same side. Thus, Ferrier describes detecting a motor failure, and proposes mitigating measures for when a motor is non-functional by compensation by other propulsors.
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 attitude detection and compensation system of Ferrier 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 17, Misfeldt does not explicitly teach, but Ferrier teaches wherein the maintaining determination unit is configured to, when the abnormal motor is present, determine whether the electric flight vehicle can be maintained at the stable attitude, without manipulating to stop or to continue driving of the abnormal motor. See for example [0038], where the aircraft can detect a malfunctioning rotor. Then in paragraphs [0050]-[0051], mitigating responses include “a first alternative control algorithm to maintain attitude when a single lift propulsor is compromised or non-functional, as second alternative control algorithm applicable where two lift propulsors have failed” and “may also include altering a flight path of the aircraft; this may include, without limitation, selection of an alternative landing site and/or procedure, modification of a flight route to avoid an obstacle, such as going around a high object rather than attempting to lift above it, selection of an emergency landing location and/or process, or the like”. See also paragraph [0099], where mitigation responses include power to functioning propulsors being increased. Thus, Ferrier describes detecting a motor failure, and proposes mitigating measures for when a motor is non-functional by compensation by other propulsors.
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 attitude detection and compensation system of Ferrier 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 18, Misfeldt does not explicitly teach, but Ferrier teaches wherein the maintaining determination unit is configured to, when the abnormal motor is present, determine whether the electric flight vehicle can be maintained at the stable attitude, without stopping or continuing driving of the abnormal motor. See for example [0038], where the aircraft can detect a malfunctioning rotor. Then in paragraphs [0050]-[0051], mitigating responses include “a first alternative control algorithm to maintain attitude when a single lift propulsor is compromised or non-functional, as second alternative control algorithm applicable where two lift propulsors have failed” and “may also include altering a flight path of the aircraft; this may include, without limitation, selection of an alternative landing site and/or procedure, modification of a flight route to avoid an obstacle, such as going around a high object rather than attempting to lift above it, selection of an emergency landing location and/or process, or the like”. See also paragraph [0099], where mitigation responses include power to functioning propulsors being increased. Thus, Ferrier describes detecting a motor failure, and proposes mitigating measures for when a motor is non-functional by compensation by other propulsors.
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 attitude detection and compensation system of Ferrier 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.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misfeldt in view of Ferrier 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, modified by the attitude maintaining system of Ferrier, 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, modified by the attitude maintaining system of Ferrier, 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 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, Ferrier suggests intermittently driving an abnormal motor to decrease its output. See for example paragraphs [0104], where mitigating responses can including pulsing a propulsor.
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 attitude maintaining system of Ferrier, 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, modified by the attitude maintaining system of Ferrier, 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights