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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on June 15, 2026 amends claims 1-3, 7-8, cancels 4-5 and 9, and adds new claims 12-23. Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks on June 15, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations and newly presented claims have been fully considered. Examiner acknowledges the incorporation of the subject matter of claim 5 into independent claim 1. Examiner acknowledges the amendment which addresses the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claim 11. However, after reviewing the amendments to the claims as well as the newly added claims, a number of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been made by the Examiner as explained in detail herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 13-14, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 8 and 23, the words “the actuator responding to the recalculated …” should be changed to “the actuator responsive to the recalculated …” to address grammatical issues.
Regarding claim 13 the words “is a target channel, other channels are reference channels, and each of the channels being configured with a respective acceleration; the calculating the anti-saturation …” should be changed to “is a target channel, and other channels that are reference channels, and each of the channels is configured with a respective acceleration; wherein the calculating the anti-saturation …” to address grammatical issues.
Regarding claim 14, the words “wherein the calculating the anti-saturation acceleration …” should be changed to “wherein the calculating of the anti-saturation acceleration …”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Each of independent claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Each of these claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant is requested to provide evidence from the specification to support any amended claim. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation: “replacing, when the first rotational speed satisfies a saturation limit condition, the first rotational speed satisfying the saturation limit condition with a second rotational speed in a critical saturation state” as recited in each of claims 1 and 12. The amended limitation, “replacing the first rotational speed … with the second rotational speed”, requires a substitution relationship that is not conveyed by the originally filed disclosure. The published specification, at [0080], however, describes re-determining the first rotational speed as the second rotational speed and then states that the control command, rather than the actuator rotational speed, is re-determined based on the second rotational speed. The specification therefore does not clearly disclose the claimed replacement operation. See paragraph [0080] of the published specification, which states that “In this step, the first rotational speed is re-determined as the second rotational speed, and instead of directly controlling the rotational speed of the actuator, the unmanned aerial vehicle control command is re-determined based on the second rotational speed.” Therefore, independent claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Appropriate amendments to each of claims 1 and 12 as well as their affected dependent claims are required to address the foregoing issue. No new matter should be added to the claims.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-8 and 10-11 fail to resolve the deficiencies of independent claim 1. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reasons stated above.
Dependent claims 13-23 fail to resolve the deficiencies of independent claim 12. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reasons stated above.
Each of claims 8 and 23 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Each of these claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant is requested to provide evidence from the specification to support any amended claim. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation: “wherein the recalculated second rotational speed is an actuator rotational speed without lead correction” as recited in each of claims 8 and 23. Although the Summary and original claim 8 of the published specification contain language that refers to the recalculated second rotational speed as an actuator rotational speed that has not undergone lead correction, the detailed description does not reasonably convey possession of that subject matter. Rather, the detailed description identifies the uncorrected rotational speed as the third rotational speed while the recalculated second rotational speed, as disclosed in [0130], and as depicted in Fig. 7 at step S720, is expressly obtained by applying the lead correction algorithm. Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner rejects each of claims 8 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Appropriate amendments are required to address the foregoing issues. No new matter should be added to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In each of independent claims 1 and 12, the term “critical” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “critical” is a relative term for which the claims do not provide an objective standard for determining when a saturation state is “critical”. The term "critical" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the term “critical” does not identify which saturation condition applies or how the claimed “critical saturation state” is objectively determined. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the critical saturation state is defined by a particular rotational speed, a saturation threshold, a control condition, a flight state, or another parameter. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. For at least these reasons, claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-8 and 10-11 fail to resolve the deficiencies of independent claim 1. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for the same reasons stated above.
Dependent claims 13-23 fail to resolve the deficiencies of independent claim 12. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for the same reasons stated above.
For each of independent claims 1 and 12, and their respective dependent claims, the term “first rotational speed” is recited. However, it is unclear to which actuator of the plurality of actuators the “first rotational speed” is referring to, and as a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite. The scope and meaning of “first rotational speed” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. In other words, the claims do not make clear whether “the first rotational speed” refers to (1) a rotational speed associated with one particular actuator or (2) respective first rotational speeds of each of the plurality of actuators. For at least these reasons, claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-8 and 10-11 fail to resolve the deficiencies of independent claim 1. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for the same reasons stated above.
Dependent claims 13-23 fail to resolve the deficiencies of independent claim 12. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for the same reasons stated above.
Subject Matter Not Taught by Art of Record
Examiner notes that the art of record does not appear to teach each and every element and/or feature of each of independent claims 1 and 12, which would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b). Examiner reserves the right to re-evaluate the merits of the claims after amendments are submitted by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights