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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the wings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-10 inherits the deficiencies as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), if rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 below, are rejected as best understood.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benedict et al. (US 2020/0207469 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Benedict teaches a robotic vehicle (Fig. 1 and [0027]; see also [0031] and Figs. 3-7), comprising:
a chassis (see Figs 1 and 2 and frame 102; see also Figs. 3-7 and frame 152);
a plurality of rotors configured to provide lift to operate the robotic vehicle in a flying mode when the plurality of rotors are positioned in a first orientation (see Fig. 1 and [0028] describing four rotors 120 in a flying mode; see also Figs. 3-7 and [0031] describing four rotors 192 in flying mode),
where individual rotors of the plurality of rotors comprise a rim configured to provide rotational support to operate the robotic vehicle in a driving mode when the plurality of rotors are positioned in a second orientation (see Fig. 2 and [0028] describing four rotors 120 in a ground locomotion mode; see also Figs. 3-7 and [0031] describing four wheels 192 in a ground mode); and
a rotor actuation system attached to the chassis, the rotor actuation system controllable to switch the plurality of rotors between the first and second orientations (see Figs. 1 and 2 and [0028] describing actuators 130 rotating rotors between the flying and ground mode; see also Figs. 3-7 and [0031] describing servos actuating rotors 90 degrees between a flying and ground mode).
Regarding claim 2, Benedict teaches wherein the individual rotors comprise a plurality of propeller blades extending radially outward from a center hub with the rim encircling the plurality of propeller blades (see Figs 1 and 2 showing rotors with outer rim and inner propeller blades; see also Figs. 3-7).
Regarding claim 12, Benedict teaches comprising electronic control circuitry configured to control operation of the plurality of rotors during driving and flying modes and to control operation of the rotor actuation system (see Fig. 16 and [0045]-[0052] describing the controller and circuit board of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Benedict teaches wherein the electronic control circuitry controls each of the plurality of rotors through a corresponding motor coupled to that rotor. (see Figs. 6-7 and [0034] describing that each wheel or rotor has an independent motor that may be controlled at different speeds to steer the vehicle; see also [0048] describing controlling each motor of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Benedict teaches wherein the plurality of rotors are controlled to rotate in a common direction during the driving mode and are controlled to rotate in multiple directions during the flying mode (see Figs. 3 and 5 and [0032] showing that reaction torques Q1 and Q3 of two motors are in the opposite direction of the reaction torques Q2 and Q4 of the other two motors while in flying mode).
Regarding claim 15, Benedict teaches wherein the plurality of rotors consist of four rotors with first and second rotors rotating in a first direction in the flying mode and third and fourth rotors rotating in a second direction in the flying mode (see Figs. 3 and 5 and [0032] showing that reaction torques Q1 and Q3 of two motors are in the opposite direction of the reaction torques Q2 and Q4 of the other two motors while in flying mode).
Regarding claim 16, Benedict teaches wherein the electronic control circuitry is configured to reverse polarity applied to motors of at least a portion of the plurality of rotors to reverse direction of rotation (see [0048] describing switching voltage polarity of the motors lo allow for bi-directional capability of the vehicle).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict et al. (US 2020/0207469 A1) in view of Mielniczek (US 2016/0332086 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Benedict does not expressly disclose wherein the rim is formed of polycarbonate.
However, in an analogous propulsion for land and air vehicle art, Mielniczek ([0002]-[0003]) discloses wherein the rim is formed of polycarbonate (see Fig. 1 showing a wheel 2 with rim 8 and a rotor 3 in its interior; see also [0031] describing rim 8 as being made from polycarbonate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Benedict wherein the rim is formed of polycarbonate, as disclosed by Mielniczek, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the purpose of acting as a shock absorber to "absorb impacts lo the wheel and protect the rotor" ([0031] of Mielniczek).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict et al. (US 2020/0207469 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2020/0407053 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Benedict discloses wherein the rotor actuation system comprises an actuator that rotates the plurality of rotors between the first and second orientations (see Figs. 1 and 2 and [0028] describing actuators 130 rotating rotors between the flying and ground mode; see also Figs. 3-7 and [0031] describing servos actuating rotors 90 degrees between a flying and ground mode).
Benedict fails to disclose spring tensioned actuator.
However, in an analogous UAV art, Song discloses a spring tensioned actuator (see Figs. 3A-3B and [0034]-[0035] describing a coil spring made of shape memory alloy used to actuate arms on a UAV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Benedict further including a spring tension actuator, as taught by Song, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the purpose of "provid(ing) an additional means for a pilot or operator to control the drone, and therefore increases the handling of the done" ([0018] of Song).
Regarding claim 5, Benedict discloses wherein the actuator secures the plurality of rotors in the first orientation during the flying mode and in the second orientation during the driving mode (see [0034] describing servos tilting the four rotors so they may be used as wheels).
Benedict does not expressly disclose wherein the spring tensioned actuator secures the plurality of rotors in the first orientation during the flying mode and in the second orientation during the driving mode.
However, Song further discloses wherein the spring tensioned actuator secures the plurality of rotors in the first orientation during the flying mode and in the second orientation during the driving mode (see Figs. 3A-3B and [0034]-[0035] describing a coil spring made of shape memory alloy used to actuate arms on a UAV, where the position of the arm is secured in a position based on if it has electric current running through the shape memory alloy spring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Benedict wherein the spring tensioned actuator secures the plurality of rotors in the first orientation during the flying mode and in the second orientation during the driving mode, as taught by Song, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the purpose of "provid(ing) an additional means for a pilot or operator to control the drone, and therefore increases the handling of the done" ([0018] of Song).
Regarding claim 6, Benedict further discloses wherein the spring tensioned actuator comprises wings that support the plurality of rotors (see Figs. 3-7 showing servo arms 172, connecting links 174, actuator arms 178, and shafts 190 mounted to rotors 192; see also [0034] describing servo arms 172, connecting links 17 4, and actuator arms 178 connecting rotors 192 to servo 170 and tilting rotors 192) describing where the wings are rotated about corresponding rotational axis to position the plurality of rotors in the first or second orientations (see Fig 6 and [0031] describing rotors 192 mounted on shafts 190 rotating around a pair of first axes 181 when rotors 192 transition between first and second positions).
Regarding claim 8, Benedict discloses the robotic vehicle of claim 6, wherein the rotor actuation system provides an actuation force that rotates the wings to position the plurality of rotors in the first or second orientation (see Figs. 1 and 2 and [0028] describing actuators 130 rotating rotors between the flying and ground mode; see also Figs. 3-7 and [0031] describing servos actuating rotors 90 degrees between a flying and ground mode).
Benedict does not expressly disclose wherein the rotor actuation system comprises a shape memory alloy (SMA) that provides an actuation force.
However, Song further discloses wherein the rotor actuation system comprises a shape memory alloy (SMA) that provides an actuation force (see Figs. 3A-3B and [0034]-[0035] describing a coil spring made of shape memory alloy used to actuate arms on a UAV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Benedict wherein the rotor actuation system comprises a shape memory alloy (SMA) that provides an actuation force, as taught by Song, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the purpose of "provid(ing) an additional means for a pilot or operator to control the drone, and therefore increases the handling of the done" ([0018] of Song).
Regarding claim 9, Benedict further discloses the robotic vehicle of claim 8, wherein the SMA simultaneously rotates the wings to reposition the plurality of rotors (see [0036] and Fig. 9 describing that servos may rotate each rotor at the same time).
Regarding claim 10, Benedict further discloses wherein activation of the rotor actuation system is triggered wirelessly (see [0029) describing motion commands may be issued wirelessly from a ground station; see also [0049] describing a transceiver accepting wireless inputs from the ground station).
Regarding claim 11, Benedict further discloses wherein the rotor actuation system repositions the plurality of rotors between the first and second orientations (see Figs. 1 and 2 and [0028] describing actuators 130 rotating rotors between the flying and ground mode; see also Figs. 3-7 and [0031] describing servos actuating rotors 90 degrees between a flying and ground mode).
Benedict fails to disclose wherein the rotor actuation system repositions the plurality of rotors between the first and second orientations in about 50 msec or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Benedict wherein the rotor actuation system repositions the plurality of rotors between the first and second orientations in about 50 msec or less, because the speed of the actuators are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the speed of the actuator could provide benefits to the speed which the vehicle switches between flying and ground modes without adding weight or complexity to the system, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
“The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict et al. (US 2020/0207469 A1) in view of Smith (US 3,127,549).
Regarding claim 17, Benedict does not expressly disclose wherein the electronic control circuitry comprises double pole, double throw (DPDT) relays that reverse connections to the motors when activated.
However, in an analogous motor that rotate in both directions art, Smith discloses wherein the electronic control circuitry comprises double pole, double throw (DPDT) relays that reverse connections to the motors when activated (see col. 1 Lns. 45-50 describing that a reversible motor that utilizes a double pole double throw switch is known).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Benedict wherein the electronic control circuitry comprises double pole, double throw (DPDT) relays that reverse connections to the motors when activated, as disclosed by Smith, with a reasonable expectation for success, or the purpose of having a reversible motor that uses all of the copper winding for any direction of rotation (col. 1 Lns. 45-46 of Smith).
Regarding claim 18, Benedict further discloses wherein the electronic control circuitry comprises wireless relays configured to actuate the DPDT relays (see [0029] describing motion commands may be issued wirelessly from a ground station; see also [0049] describing a transceiver accepting wireless inputs from the ground station).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
The prior art above fails to disclose wherein linear springs extend between the wings, the linear springs providing tension between the wings to maintain the plurality of rotors in the first or second orientation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights