DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 24, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on November 21, 2023 and October 10, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0162551 and the KR10-2024-0137807 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “external controller” recited in claims 4 and 14 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 and 13 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0078676 A1 to Exner et al. (herein after “Exner et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 9, 11 and 19,
the Exner et al. publication discloses drone system (1) for synthetic aperture radar (SAR) operation to control and operate an aerial vehicle mounted with an SAR (see ¶34 for “a radar-based system such as a SAR system (synthetic-aperture radar)”), comprising:
a flight control module (10) configured to control a low level of the aerial vehicle (see ¶32, where drone 1 comprises a control system 10 that includes a conventional flight controller that acts as the central brain of the drone, processing data from sensors (gyroscope, accelerometer) to maintain stability and translating flight commands into motor actions. Conventional flight controllers are notoriously known for controlling a low level of the drone by adjusting the motor speed to ensure a stable, controlled flight, while also acting as a hub for the radio receiver, Electronic Speed Controllers, and other navigation modules);
a high-level control module (20) configured to perform communication for swarm control of the aerial vehicles, receive flight information from the flight control module, and transmit a command to the flight control module (see FIG. 8C, ¶37 – ¶38 and ¶67 – ¶69, where drone 1 implicitly discloses performing communication for swarm control of aerial vehicles 1, receiving flight information from the flight control module, and transmitting a command to the flight control module to ensure a stable and controlled flight);
a link module configured to link the flight control module and the high-level control module (see ¶33 and ¶38, where a link module configured to link the flight control module and the high-level control module is implicitly disclosed); and
a data acquisition board (10) connected to the high-level control module and configured to store a flight log from the high-level control module and radar data from a radar module provided with the SAR (see ¶32, where “control system/data acquisition board 10 is configured to receive position data from the positioning system 12, and optionally further data from various conventional sensors on the drone 1”; see also ¶34, where control system/data acquisition board 10 is connected to the SAR system; see also ¶38, where “computer system[/high-level control module] 20 is implemented on one or more of the drones 1, for example as part of the control system 10”).
As to claims 3 and 13,
the Exner et al. publication discloses a sensor connected to the flight control module and configured to transmit position information about a relative position of the aerial vehicle to the flight control module. (See ¶32 and ¶34.)
As to claims 4 and 14,
the Exner et al. publication discloses a remote-control receiver connected to the high-level control module and configured to transmit a command received from an external controller to the high-level control module. (See ¶38 and ¶40 for a discussion on remote connectivity “from an external resource, such as one or more remote computers” which implicitly discloses a remote-control receiver connected to the high-level control module and configured to transmit a command received from an external controller to the high-level control module.)
As to claims 5 and 15,
the Exner et al. publication discloses the aerial vehicle capable of being a follower aerial vehicle, and the high-level control module receiving a command for controlling operations of the follower aerial vehicle from the remote-control receiver based on operation mode switching upon preset emergency situations such as malfunction of a leader aerial vehicle or poor communication of the leader aerial vehicle. (See ¶69, where “[t]he drone 1 negotiates with other drones, by drone-to-drone communication” and ¶71, where “[t]he respective drone may also be configured to negotiate with other drones” how to handle a task.)
As to claims 6 and 16,
the Exner et al. publication discloses the high-level control module providing position target information of the aerial vehicle to the flight control module, and the flight control module providing estimated position information about the aerial vehicle to the high-level control module. (See ¶33 – ¶38.)
As to claims 7 and 17,
the Exner et al. publication discloses the high-level control module performing communication control between a leader aerial vehicle and a follower aerial vehicle or communication control between agents, and the leader aerial vehicle provides estimated position information or leader reference position information to the follower aerial vehicle. (FIG. 8C and ¶67 – ¶71.)
As to claims 8 and 18,
the Exner et al. publication discloses the data acquisition board exchanges global positioning system (GPS) time for synchronization or leader-follower communication with another aerial vehicle with a data acquisition board of the other aerial vehicle. (FIG. 8C and ¶67 – ¶71.)
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 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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Exner et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0265736 A1 to Goto et al. (herein after “Goto et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 2 and 12,
the Exner et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a satellite antenna connected to the flight control module and configured to receive a satellite signal from a satellite, wherein the flight control module receives global positioning information calculated based on the satellite signal from the satellite antenna, and transmits the flight information based on the global positioning information to the high-level control module through the link module.
Using satellite antenna to facilitate navigation of UAVs is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Goto et al. publication who discloses “[a] flight-side control unit 20 . . . connected to a flight position acquisition unit 21 that acquires a flight position indicating a position of the flight-side control unit 20 . . . the flight position acquisition unit 21 is configured by a GPS (Global Positioning System) device, and acquires a flight position by receiving radio waves from a GPS satellite by an antenna 21A, as has been well known. ” (See ¶49.) Such disclosure suggests a satellite antenna connected to the flight control module and configured to receive a satellite signal from a satellite, wherein the flight control module receives global positioning information calculated based on the satellite signal from the satellite antenna, and transmits the flight information based on the global positioning information to the high-level control module through the link module.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Exner et al. publication with a satellite antenna connected to the flight control module and configured to receive a satellite signal from a satellite, wherein the flight control module receives global positioning information calculated based on the satellite signal from the satellite antenna, and transmits the flight information based on the global positioning information to the high-level control module through the link module, as suggested by the Goto et al. publication, in order to track and monitor a plurality of drones.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Exner et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0294249 A1 to Motoyama et al. (herein after “Motoyama et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 10,
the Exner et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
an electric speed controller connected to the flight control module.
Electric speed controller acting as an intermediary, translating electronic flight commands into precise motor RPM for stabilization and movement are old and well-known for being connected to a flight control module, as demonstrated by the Motoyama et al. publication who discloses “flight control unit 103 generat[ing] flight control information on the basis of the control instruction for a flight operation and transmit[ing] control information to a drive system . . . The drive system includes a plurality of ESCs (Electric Speed Controllers), a plurality of motors, and a plurality of rotors (see the rotors 111 in FIG. 1). The ESC drives the corresponding motor on the basis of the control information and rotates the rotor connected to the shaft of the motor. This allows the drone 10 to fly in a desired direction and at a desired speed, and to stop (hover) in a desired position.” (See ¶49.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Exner et al. publication with an electric speed controller connected to the flight control module, as suggested by the Motoyama et al. publication, in order to fly in a desired direction and at a desired speed, and to stop (hover) in a desired position.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Exner et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0228408 A1 to Ford et al. (herein after “Ford et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 20,
the Exner et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
by the high-level control module, performing a real-time kinematics (RTK) GPS setup for the aerial vehicle.
Performing real-time kinematics for an aerial vehicle is old and notoriously well-known, as demonstrated by the Ford et al. publication who discloses “[an] aircraft perform{ing} RTK calculations to determine a vector to the shipboard GPS antennas and modifies the vector with data from the INU's.” (See Abstract and ¶24 – ¶27.) Such disclosure suggests performing a real-time kinematics (RTK) GPS setup for an aerial vehicle by a high-level control module.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Exner et al. publication by performing a real-time kinematics (RTK) GPS setup for the aerial vehicle via the high-level control module, as suggested by the Ford et al. publication, in order to facilitate navigation.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights