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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on January 2, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202410090601.x, filed on January 23, 2024.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 2, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 discloses 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 discloses function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“first inertial measurement module” in claim 1, 5, 11 and 15. A review of the specification shows that it is any of a gyroscope and an acceleration sensor or a combination thereof in [0015].
“second inertial measurement module” in claim 1, 5, 9, 11, 15 and 19. A review of the specification shows that it is any of a gyroscope and an acceleration sensor or a combination thereof in [0015].
“control module” in claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 18. A review of the specification shows that it can be realized by a chip or a circuit block, a firmware circuit, or a circuit board containing several electronic components and wires inside a chip in [0015].
“reminder module” in claims 3 and 13. A review of the specification shows that it can be realized by a buzzer installed in the main body 110or a display screen in [0015].
“power flight module” in claim 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18. A review of the specification shows that it may include a propeller 102 and an electrical motor (not illustrated) in [0015].
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, they 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 these limitations 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
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.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., WO2022/040882A1 (Hereinafter, “Chen 82”), in view of Song et al., US2019/0154447A1 (Hereinafter, “Song”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Chen 82 discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising: a main body; a first inertial measurement module (100) coupled to the main body See [0052], “As shown in Figure 1, the UAV 100 includes a frame 110 and a power system 120. The power system 120 includes a motor 121 and a propeller 122.” And [0067], “For example, when the power system 120 is started, the vibration state of the frame 110 is collected by the inertial measurement unit of the UAV 100 at preset intervals.”
a See [0080], “The UAV also includes a frame and an inertial measurement unit. The vibration status information of the UAV includes multiple vibration status quantities of the frame collected by the inertial measurement unit, including the vibration intensity and vibration frequency of the frame.”
a control module electrically connecting to the first inertial measurement module and the See [0050], “a control terminal … when the drone is in a pre-takeoff state, it can determine whether the drone's propeller is in an unbalanced state … alert the user of the propeller abnormality.“ And [0068], “power system 120 is started, the inertial measurement unit of the UAV 100 collects the vibration state of the frame 110 at different times, and determines whether the propeller is in an unbalanced state based on the vibration state of the frame 110 at different times collected by the inertial measurement unit.”
Chen 82 discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle with vibration detecting features, but does not disclose a second inertial measurement or a damping system to manage vibration. However, Song teaches a UAV platform damping system to manage vibration in Fig.3, [0006-0008], [0048-0049]; wherein they teach a UAV with two IMUs (one dampened with foam/dampening element another not) and teaches overall improvement of IMU operation/readings with one dampened unit instead of two.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Chen 82’s device with the shock absorbing limitations disclosed in Song with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce noise associated with a signal produced by the one or more gyroscopes, see Song [0007].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Chen 82 discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 11: wherein the control module is configured to compare the vibration value with a threshold value and to determine the pre-flight state as abnormal in response to the vibration value being equivalent to or greater than the threshold value. See at least [0050], “This propeller anomaly detection method can be applied to … a control system composed of a drone and a control terminal. … This solution uses the status information of at least some components of the drone when the drone is in a pre-takeoff state to determine whether the drone's propeller is unbalanced. If the drone's propeller is unbalanced, it outputs corresponding prompts to alert the user of the propeller abnormality.” Also [0068], “inertial measurement unit of the UAV 100 collects the vibration state of the frame 110 at different times … when the vibration frequency of the frame 110 is greater than a preset threshold, it can be determined that the propeller blades are unbalanced.”
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Chen 82 discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 11:
further comprising a reminder module, wherein the reminder module is configured to provide a warning in response to the pre-flight state being determined as abnormal. See at least [0050], “This propeller anomaly detection method can be applied … If the drone's propeller is unbalanced, it outputs corresponding prompts to alert the user of the propeller abnormality.”
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Chen 82 discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 11:
wherein the control module is configured to compare the vibration value with a threshold value and to determine the pre-flight state as normal in response to the vibration value being less than the threshold value, and then the unmanned aerial vehicle is allowed to take off. See [0062], “The flight controller determines whether the propeller is in an unbalanced state based on the rotational speed and current of the motor at different times. If the propeller is in a balanced state, no action is taken and the drone can work normally.”
Regarding Claims 6, 16 and 17, Chen 82 discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 2 and 12:
further comprising a power flight module, wherein the control module is configured to compare the vibration value with the threshold value after the power flight module has been activated for a period of time. See [0071], “the controller is further configured to determine, based on multiple vibration state quantities of the frame 110, the positive abnormal distribution of the vibration state quantities during a preset time period of the UAV 100; and to determine, based on the positive abnormal distribution of the vibration state quantities during the preset time period of the UAV 100, whether the propeller is in an unbalanced state. For example, the preset time period is the time period between the start time of the power system 120 and the start time of 4 seconds.”
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Chen 82 discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 11:
further comprising a power flight module, wherein the control module electrically connects to the power flight module, and shuts down the power flight module in response to the pre-flight state being determined as abnormal. See [0062], “when the power system starts up, i.e. when the drone takes off … The flight controller determines whether the propeller is in an unbalanced state based on the rotational speed and current of the motor at different times … If the propeller is in an unbalanced state, the flight controller controls the motor of the power system to stop rotating within a preset time after the drone takes off, so that the propeller stops rotating and the drone is prevented from taking off forcibly and causing a crash.”
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Chen 82 discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle with vibration detecting features, but does not disclose a multi-axis sensor. However, Song teaches a UAV controller with three axis inertial sensors including: wherein the second inertial measurement module is configured to detect a vibration value of the main body along at least one of a first axial direction, a second axial direction and a third axial direction; the first axial direction, the second axial direction and the third axial direction are perpendicular to each other. See at least [0036], “a sensing device can include any suitable number and combination of inertial sensors, such as at least one, two, three, or more accelerometers, and/or at least one, two, three, or more gyroscopes … can include at least one, two, three, or more IMUs, which may each include any number or combination of integrated accelerometers and gyroscopes. An inertial sensor may provide sensing data relative to a single axis of motion. The axis of motion may correspond to an axis of the inertial sensor (e.g., a longitudinal axis) … a sensing device may include three accelerometers so as to provide acceleration data along three different axes of motion. The three directions of motion may be orthogonal axes.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Chen 82’s device with the shock absorbing limitations disclosed in Song with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce noise associated with a signal produced by the one or more gyroscopes, see Song [0007].
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 82 in view of Song, in further view of Chen et al., CN116215875A (Hereinafter, “Chen 75”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Chen 82 discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle with vibration detecting features, but does not disclose a flight attitude buffer. However, Chen 75 teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle with vibration detection including the following: the first inertial measurement module is configured to detect a flight attitude of the main body under a buffering effect provided by the damping element. See [0004], “excess vibrations are input into the inertial navigation unit (IMU), which may resonate with its own vibration damping mechanism. This can cause the controller to fail to meet the control requirements and produce erroneous outputs, which can lead to aircraft attitude instability or, in severe cases, loss of control and crash.” Also [0009], “The buffer base is equipped with a buffer mechanism that employs at least one level of vibration reduction. A horizontally arranged brushless motor mounting plate is synchronously fixedly mounted on the top of the buffer mechanism.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Chen 82’s device with the buffering limitations disclosed in Chen 75 with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an optimized analysis platform for vibration detection of IMUs in
unmanned aerial vehicles, see Chen 75 [0006].
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 82 in view of Song, in further view of Takemura et al., US2024/0255967A1 (Hereinafter, “Takemura”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Chen 82 discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle with vibration detecting features, but does not explicitly disclose a take-off prohibition mode. However, Takemura teaches a flight controller including the following limitation: further comprising a power flight module, wherein the control module electrically connects to the power flight module, and prohibits the power flight module from providing a power for the unmanned aerial vehicle to take off in response to the pre-flight state being determined as abnormal. See at least [0058], “The flight control device 40 performs diagnosis preparation in step S101 shown in FIG. 3. The flight control device 40 performs abnormality diagnosis of the eVTOL 10 under a predetermined diagnostic condition.” And [0160], “FIG. 3, when the eVTOL 10 is not in flight, the flight control device 40 assumes that the eVTOL 10 is on the ground, and proceeds to step S109. In step S109, the flight control device 40 performs take-off prohibition mode processing. The flight control device 40 changes the operating mode to the take-off prohibition mode in the take-off prohibition mode processing.” Applying KSR rational of "Use of Known Technique To Improve Similar Devices (Methods, or Products) in the Same Way" by applying the preventing of a take-off command (power to takeoff) from the eVTOL to the UAV. (Similar devices in that they are both vertical takeoff aircraft one is manned the other remote controlled/ autonomous...). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the pre take-off method to a UAV in general instead of an eVTOL specifically, as disclosed in Takemura, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Chen 82’s UAV device with the pre take-off limitations disclosed in Takemura with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance safety when an abnormality has occurred in the unmanned aircraft, see Takemura [0022].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 82 in view of Song, in further view of Wu et al., [WO 2020/093861 A1] (Hereinafter, “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen 82 discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle with vibration detecting features, but does not disclose a multi-axis sensor. However, Wu teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle controller with damping circuit boards including: wherein the main body contains a circuit board, the first inertial measurement module is installed in the circuit board through the damping element, and the second inertial measurement module is coupled to the circuit board in an immovable manner. See [0051], “FIG1a, in this embodiment of the application, the IMU 100 may include a shock- absorbing structure 120 in addition to the sensor circuit 110 described above. The sensor circuit 110 can be integrated on a printed circuit board. The printed circuit board with the integrated sensor circuit can be placed in the counterweight. The shock absorption structure can be placed on the upper and lower parts of the counterweight to achieve shock absorption of the sensor circuit and avoid the problem of inaccurate data acquisition caused by vibration during the flight of the aircraft.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Chen 82’s device with the multi-axial limitations disclosed in Wu with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid the problem of inaccurate data acquisition caused by vibration during the flight of the aircraft, see Wu [0051].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
China Publication CN 116215875 A by He et al.
WIPO Publication WO 2017028310 A1 by Huo et al.
WIPO Publication WO 2020093861 A1 by Wu et al
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights