DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claim 1, as originally filed, is currently pending and has been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. ( USP 2017/0134631) in view of Zhang ( DERWENT -2017-16328J ( CN-106444813)), in view of Tan et al. (USP 2007/0222674) further in view of Powell et al. ( USP 2016/0216718).
As Per Claim 1, Zhao et al. (Zhao teaches, an aerial vehicle ( via a movable object 118, 310, in Figs.1, 3), comprising: one or more motors; ( via “The movement mechanisms 106 can include one or more of rotors, propellers, blades, engines, motors, ..”, [0029], Fig.1) one or more sensors configured to detect data; (via “The sensing system 108 can include one or more sensors”, [0031], Fig.1, also see , sensor 303,[0066], [ Fig.3); a control system configured to: ( via “a controller 304 on board the movable object 310 for generating the control data”, [0052]).
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach, generate torque values based on the data; generate revised torque values by validating sub-torque values representing a minimum amount of torque to maintain the aerial vehicle at a hover status; and determine a motor speed for the one or more motors based on the revised torque values.
In an analogous art, Zhang teaches, wherein, generate torque values based on the data; ( via a T-S fuzzy model based four-rotor attitude controlling method, involving establishing four-rotor attitude dynamic equation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), by using Euler-Lagrange equation. Determining Euler angle vector, yaw angle, pitch angle and roll angle. Determining, Input, yaw and pitching torque of a system for obtaining a roll torque matrix… transmitting T-S fuzzy control output to rotary wing UAV power distribution system , See Basic-Abstract: NOVELTY , Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhao and Zhang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Zhao to include the teachings ( T-S fuzzy model )
of Zhang and configure with the system of Zhao in order to determine yaw, roll and pitching torque to rotate its propeller, control the attitude and movement of the UAV. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to generate lift /thrust and control rotational motion of UAV( i.e., UAV flight control).
However, Zhao and Zhang does not explicitly teach, generate revised torque values by validating sub-torque values representing a minimum amount of torque to maintain the aerial vehicle at a hover status.
Examiner interprets, “validating torque” as ‘calibrating torque’.
In an analogous art, Tan et al. (Tan) teaches, a system for tracking real-time positions and correcting past position errors of a mobile object using multiple positioning techniques with DGPS, INS and motion sensors, wherein, generate revised torque values by validating sub-torque values representing a minimum amount of torque to maintain the aerial vehicle at a hover status; (via the system being equipped with a navigation fusion and decision-making module 211 (Figs. 2,3) receiving data from four main sub-modules: data correlation processing module 310, data fusion priority decision module 311, data fusion method/filter selection module 312, and data fusion computation module 313, [0058], [0059], and “the decision making module 211 to support the determination of the calibrated position data”, [0038], lines 15-16), Figs. 3, 2 and 1),[0067], [[0068], also see [0034][0038], Figs. 1-3).
Furthermore, Tan does not teach, generating a sub-torque values representing a minimum amount of torque to maintain the aerial vehicle at a hover status.
Therefore, like implementing an iterative position validation module in the data fusion computation module 313, to output as a real-time calibration position data in Tan et al. , it would be obvious to output calibrated sub-torque (Yaw torque, Pitch torque and Roll torque) data in real-time to represent a minimum torque required by the UAV to maintain a flight status (hover status).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhao, Zhang and Tan before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Zhao, to include the teachings ( iterative position validation modules , fusion and decision making module etc.) of Tan and configure with the system of Zhao in order to decision making module making calibrated torque data and supplying calibrated data to the UAV to maintain flight operation (hover status). Motivation to combine the two teachings is, real-time position data correction and supplying precision data for flight operation (i.e., an added feature to enhance safe flight of UAV).
However, Zhao in view of Zhang and Tan does not explicitly teach, determining a motor speed for the one or more motors based on the revised torque values.
In a related field of art, Powell et al. (Powell) teaches, system and method for limiting HVAC motor torque, wherein determining a motor speed for the one or more motors based on the revised torque values. ( via system controller 105 being equipped with algorithm and coupled with controller 110, determining motor speed from torque, see ([0017], [0018], [0028], [0030], Ref. Claim 2, Fig. 1, Fig.2 (steps 214, 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhao, Zhang, Tan and Powell before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Zhao, to include the teachings (algorithm) of Powell in order to compute motor speed from torque. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to compute motor speed for controlling the torque magnitude of the propeller of the UAV ( i.e., precision torque supply to UAV, safe flight).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C