DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 01/10/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-20 are pending in this application. In the claim set filed 01/10/2025:
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7-9, 17 and 18 are objected to due to the following minor informalities:
Claim(s) 7-9, 17 and 18 all recite a similar antecedent basis issue, namely claims 7-9, 17 and 18 each recite “wherein to generate the trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality.” However, claim 1, from which claims 7-9 depend, and claim 11, from which claims 17 and 18 depend, each already recite “a trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality.” Therefore, claim(s) 7-9, 17 and 18 should be amended to instead recite: “wherein to generate the trigger signal for characterizing the abnormality.”
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAI (Chinese Patent Publication 106215430 A) in view of Schick et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0051192 A1) referenced as Cai and Schick, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, while Cai discloses: “A flight control method, comprising: in a flight state, in response to a collision between an aircraft and an object, generating a trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality; and in response to the trigger signal, reducing rotation speeds of all motors in a power system of the aircraft to reduce a flight altitude of the aircraft” [Cai; "When the toy aircraft collides vertically, the MCU control processing module sends a control signal to the motor control module, and the motor control module sends a control command to slow down the propeller of the toy aircraft;" ¶: 0018;
"If the collision is vertical, such as hitting the ceiling, the MCU control processing module 2 sends a control signal to the motor control module 3, which then sends a control command to slow down the propellers, causing the toy to detach from the ceiling and land smoothly;" ¶: 0032];
Cai does not specifically state: “and adjusting an attitude of the aircraft to a normal attitude.”
Schick, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling aircrafts, teaches: “and adjusting an attitude of the aircraft to a normal attitude” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses automatically controlling a UAV to perform a rapid altitude reduction (denoted 500r in Fig. 5A-5C) by first implementing a free-fall descent by reducing propulsion to all propellers to zero, and subsequently pulsing the propulsion of the propellers to counteract rotation of the UAV (denoted 500w in Fig. 5A-5C) and maintain a desired attitude. Schick further discloses that the UAV may resume its hovering operation by cancelling the previously recited free-fall descent prior to the UAV's altitude violating a predefined safety distance (denoted 500m in Fig. 5A-5C). The end result is the UAV hovering in the state disclosed in Fig. 5C, which the Examiner has interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "normal attitude;" Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
With respect to claim 2, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein speed reduction ranges of all the motors are substantially the same.”
Schick teaches: “wherein speed reduction ranges of all the motors are substantially the same” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses automatically controlling a UAV to perform a rapid altitude reduction (denoted 500r in Fig. 5A-5C) by first implementing a free-fall descent by reducing propulsion to all propellers to zero, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "wherein speed reduction ranges of all the motors are substantially the same;" Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
With respect to claim 3, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein during a process of reducing the flight altitude of the aircraft, a tilt angle of the aircraft caused by the collision is kept substantially unchanged.”
Schick teaches: “wherein during a process of reducing the flight altitude of the aircraft, a tilt angle of the aircraft caused by the collision is kept substantially unchanged” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses automatically controlling a UAV to perform a rapid altitude reduction (denoted 500r in Fig. 5A-5C) by first implementing a free-fall descent by reducing propulsion to all propellers to zero, and subsequently pulsing the propulsion of the propellers to counteract rotation of the UAV (denoted 500w in Fig. 5A-5C) and maintain a desired attitude, in view of the disclosed vertical collision and subsequent smooth landing operation disclosed in the Cai reference; Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
With respect to claim 5, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein the reducing of the speeds of all the motors in the power system of the aircraft includes: in response to the collision not being caused by a manual control operation of a user, reducing the rotation speeds of all the motors in the power system of the aircraft.”
Schick teaches: “wherein the reducing of the speeds of all the motors in the power system of the aircraft includes: in response to the collision not being caused by a manual control operation of a user, reducing the rotation speeds of all the motors in the power system of the aircraft” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses that the UAV may operate under full autonomy when perform the previously recited, free-fall descent, attitude control and final hovering operations above; Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0034, 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
With respect to claim 7, Cai discloses: “wherein the generating of the trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality in response to the collision between the aircraft and the object includes: in response to a measurement value of an accelerometer of the aircraft being greater than or equal to a threshold value A, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal” [Cai; "When an aircraft collides, taking a collision in the positive X-axis direction as an example, the accelerometer 42 of the angular velocity gyroscope 4 will detect the acceleration along the negative X-axis direction and transmit the acceleration data to the MCU control and processing module 2 for analysis. Since the acceleration value generated by the collision is generated instantaneously and fluctuates greatly compared with the acceleration value in the normal flight state, it has special characteristics. Therefore, once such special acceleration value is received, it can be determined that the aircraft has collided;" Fig.1; ¶: 0026, 0031, 0032].
With respect to claim 10, Cai discloses: “wherein the reducing of the speeds of all motors in the power system of the aircraft includes: reducing an ascent speed control amount and an attitude control amount provided to the power system” [Cai; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cai discloses reducing the rotation speed of the propeller(s), which control both the ascent speed and attitude of the aircraft, upon detecting that a vertical collision has occurred. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted Cai's disclosure of reducing the rotation speed of the propeller(s), which control both the ascent speed and attitude of the aircraft as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "reducing an ascent speed control amount and an attitude control amount provided to the power system;" ¶: 0018; 0032].
With respect to claim 11, while Cai discloses: “A flight control device, comprising: at least one storage medium storing at least one set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein during operation, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to at least: in a flight state, in response to a collision between an aircraft and an object, generate a trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality, and in response to the trigger signal, reduce rotation speeds of all motors in a power system of the aircraft to reduce a flight altitude of the aircraft” [Cai; "When the toy aircraft collides vertically, the MCU control processing module sends a control signal to the motor control module, and the motor control module sends a control command to slow down the propeller of the toy aircraft;" ¶: 0018;
"This invention utilizes an MCU control processing module in conjunction with an angular velocity gyroscope. By analyzing the direction, velocity, or acceleration monitored by the angular velocity gyroscope, the MCU processor can determine whether the change in direction, velocity, or acceleration is caused by a collision. It then automatically implements a protection mechanism to stop or decelerate the toy aircraft, thus preventing secondary damage to the toy aircraft due to continued loss of control and ensuring consumer safety;" ¶: 0026;
"If the collision is vertical, such as hitting the ceiling, the MCU control processing module 2 sends a control signal to the motor control module 3, which then sends a control command to slow down the propellers, causing the toy to detach from the ceiling and land smoothly;" ¶: 0032];
Cai does not specifically state: “and adjust an attitude of the aircraft to a normal attitude.”
Schick teaches: “and adjust an attitude of the aircraft to a normal attitude” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses automatically controlling a UAV to perform a rapid altitude reduction (denoted 500r in Fig. 5A-5C) by first implementing a free-fall descent by reducing propulsion to all propellers to zero, and subsequently pulsing the propulsion of the propellers to counteract rotation of the UAV (denoted 500w in Fig. 5A-5C) and maintain a desired attitude. Schick further discloses that the UAV may resume its hovering operation by cancelling the previously recited free-fall descent prior to the UAV's altitude violating a predefined safety distance (denoted 500m in Fig. 5A-5C). The end result is the UAV hovering in the state disclosed in Fig. 5C, which the Examiner has interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "normal attitude;" Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
With respect to claim 12, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein speed reduction ranges of all the motors are substantially the same.”
Schick teaches: “wherein speed reduction ranges of all the motors are substantially the same” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses automatically controlling a UAV to perform a rapid altitude reduction (denoted 500r in Fig. 5A-5C) by first implementing a free-fall descent by reducing propulsion to all propellers to zero, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "wherein speed reduction ranges of all the motors are substantially the same;" Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
With respect to claim 13, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein during a process of reducing the flight altitude of the aircraft, a tilt angle of the aircraft caused by the collision is kept substantially unchanged.”
Schick teaches: “wherein during a process of reducing the flight altitude of the aircraft, a tilt angle of the aircraft caused by the collision is kept substantially unchanged” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses automatically controlling a UAV to perform a rapid altitude reduction (denoted 500r in Fig. 5A-5C) by first implementing a free-fall descent by reducing propulsion to all propellers to zero, and subsequently pulsing the propulsion of the propellers to counteract rotation of the UAV (denoted 500w in Fig. 5A-5C) and maintain a desired attitude, in view of the disclosed vertical collision and subsequent smooth landing operation disclosed in the Cai reference; Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
With respect to claim 15, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein to reduce the speeds of all the motors in the power system of the aircraft, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to at least: in response to the collision not being caused by a manual control operation of a user, reduce the rotation speeds of all the motors in the power system of the aircraft.”
Schick teaches: “wherein to reduce the speeds of all the motors in the power system of the aircraft, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to at least: in response to the collision not being caused by a manual control operation of a user, reduce the rotation speeds of all the motors in the power system of the aircraft” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses that the UAV may operate under full autonomy when perform the previously recited, free-fall descent, attitude control and final hovering operations above; Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0034, 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
With respect to claim 17, Cai discloses: “wherein to generate the trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality in response to the collision between the aircraft and the object, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to at least: in response to a measurement value of an accelerometer of the aircraft being greater than or equal to a threshold value A, determine that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal” [Cai; "When an aircraft collides, taking a collision in the positive X-axis direction as an example, the accelerometer 42 of the angular velocity gyroscope 4 will detect the acceleration along the negative X-axis direction and transmit the acceleration data to the MCU control and processing module 2 for analysis. Since the acceleration value generated by the collision is generated instantaneously and fluctuates greatly compared with the acceleration value in the normal flight state, it has special characteristics. Therefore, once such special acceleration value is received, it can be determined that the aircraft has collided;" Fig.1; ¶: 0026, 0031, 0032].
With respect to claim 19, Cai discloses: “wherein to reduce the speeds of all motors in the power system of the aircraft, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to at least: reduce an ascent speed control amount and an attitude control amount provided to the power system” [Cai; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cai discloses reducing the rotation speed of the propeller(s), which control both the ascent speed and attitude of the aircraft, upon detecting that a vertical collision has occurred. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted Cai's disclosure of reducing the rotation speed of the propeller(s), which control both the ascent speed and attitude of the aircraft as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "reducing an ascent speed control amount and an attitude control amount provided to the power system;" ¶: 0018; 0032].
With respect to claim 20, while Cai discloses: “An aircraft, comprising: at least one storage medium storing at least one set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein during operation, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to at least: in a flight state, in response to a collision between an aircraft and an object, generate a trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality, and in response to the trigger signal, reduce rotation speeds of all motors in a power system of the aircraft to reduce a flight altitude of the aircraft” [Cai; "When the toy aircraft collides vertically, the MCU control processing module sends a control signal to the motor control module, and the motor control module sends a control command to slow down the propeller of the toy aircraft;" ¶: 0018;
"This invention utilizes an MCU control processing module in conjunction with an angular velocity gyroscope. By analyzing the direction, velocity, or acceleration monitored by the angular velocity gyroscope, the MCU processor can determine whether the change in direction, velocity, or acceleration is caused by a collision. It then automatically implements a protection mechanism to stop or decelerate the toy aircraft, thus preventing secondary damage to the toy aircraft due to continued loss of control and ensuring consumer safety;" ¶: 0026;
"If the collision is vertical, such as hitting the ceiling, the MCU control processing module 2 sends a control signal to the motor control module 3, which then sends a control command to slow down the propellers, causing the toy to detach from the ceiling and land smoothly;" ¶: 0032];
Cai does not specifically state: “and adjust an attitude of the aircraft to a normal attitude.”
Schick teaches: “and adjust an attitude of the aircraft to a normal attitude” [Schick; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schick discloses automatically controlling a UAV to perform a rapid altitude reduction (denoted 500r in Fig. 5A-5C) by first implementing a free-fall descent by reducing propulsion to all propellers to zero, and subsequently pulsing the propulsion of the propellers to counteract rotation of the UAV (denoted 500w in Fig. 5A-5C) and maintain a desired attitude. Schick further discloses that the UAV may resume its hovering operation by cancelling the previously recited free-fall descent prior to the UAV's altitude violating a predefined safety distance (denoted 500m in Fig. 5A-5C). The end result is the UAV hovering in the state disclosed in Fig. 5C, which the Examiner has interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "normal attitude;" Fig. 5A-5C; ¶: 0043, 0096-0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a thrust pulsing functionality during the aircraft altitude reduction process in order to maintain a target attitude as taught by Schick with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to “prevent or reduce a damage of both the propellers and the object that hits the unmanned aerial vehicle” [Schick; ¶: 0043].
Claim(s) 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Schick and YAMADA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0074517 A1) referenced as Yamada moving forward.
With respect to claim 4, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein the power system further includes propellers driven by the motors, and the aircraft includes a propeller guard component surrounding outer sides of the propellers.”
Yamada, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling aircrafts, teaches: “wherein the power system further includes propellers driven by the motors, and the aircraft includes a propeller guard component surrounding outer sides of the propellers” [Yamada; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamada discloses a frame structure, denoted 30 in Fig. 1, surrounding the outer sides of four rotors/propellers, denoted 22 in Fig. 1; Fig. 1; ¶: 0028-0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a frame to protect the rotors and propellers of an aircraft that further enables a user to fly the aircraft along a surface to perform a desired task using various forms of surface contact detection as taught by Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to prevent erroneous detection of the contact sensors caused by the weight of the frame connecting member or disturbance such as wind [Yamada; ¶: 0027, 0067].
With respect to claim 6, Cai does not specifically state: “further comprising: In response to the collision being caused by a manual control operation of a user, controlling all the motors to accelerate according to the manual control operation of the use.”
Yamada teaches: “further comprising: In response to the collision being caused by a manual control operation of a user, controlling all the motors to accelerate according to the manual control operation of the use” [Yamada; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamada discloses allowing the user of the multicopter to manually activate an automatic sticking control function of the aircraft. When this function is active: "When receiving information indicating that the automatic sticking control is in an ON state through the operation command receive unit 80, the flight control unit 82 controls the drive unit 74 so that the multicopter 100 moves as operated by the user in the controller device 200 while controlling the drive unit 74 so that the contact state of the multicopter 100 with a wall or ceiling of the construction is maintained. That is, for example, when the user moves the multicopter 100 upward along a wall, the user can easily move the multicopter 100 along the wall by inputting an operation command for moving the multicopter 100 upward without inputting an operation command for diagonally moving the multicopter 100 that includes a component in a direction toward the wall and a component in an upward direction;" ¶: 0040; See also: Fig. 5; ¶: 0039, 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a frame to protect the rotors and propellers of an aircraft that further enables a user to fly the aircraft along a surface to perform a desired task using various forms of surface contact detection as taught by Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to prevent erroneous detection of the contact sensors caused by the weight of the frame connecting member or disturbance such as wind [Yamada; ¶: 0027, 0067].
With respect to claim 8, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein the generating of the trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality in response to the collision between the aircraft and the object includes: in response to an attitude disturbance of the aircraft being observed by an observer to be greater than or equal to a threshold value B, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal.”
Yamada teaches: “In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamada discloses determining that a UAV is in a contact state with a wall and/or ceiling surface based on the pitch angle of the aircraft exceeding zero degrees in combination with the change of linear speed of the aircraft decreasing. The Examiner has interpreted the above disclosed combination of the pitch angle threshold and aircraft speed change threshold as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited: "in response to an attitude disturbance of the aircraft being observed by an observer to be greater than or equal to a threshold value B, determining that the aircraft collides with the object;" ” [Yamada; Fig. 14A, 14B; ¶: 0071-0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a frame to protect the rotors and propellers of an aircraft that further enables a user to fly the aircraft along a surface to perform a desired task using various forms of surface contact detection as taught by Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to prevent erroneous detection of the contact sensors caused by the weight of the frame connecting member or disturbance such as wind [Yamada; ¶: 0027, 0067].
With respect to claim 9, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein the generating of the trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality in response to the collision between the aircraft and the object includes: in response to an external disturbance being greater than or equal to a threshold value C, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal, wherein the external disturbance is determined based on an input amount and a control amount of a control system model of the aircraft.”
Yamada teaches: “wherein the generating of the trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality in response to the collision between the aircraft and the object includes: in response to an external disturbance being greater than or equal to a threshold value C, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal, wherein the external disturbance is determined based on an input amount and a control amount of a control system model of the aircraft” [Yamada; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamada discloses determining that a UAV is in a contact state with a wall and/or ceiling surface based on a contact force between the aircraft and the surface is greater than using equation (4). Equation (4) states that the contact force is calculated as a function of an amount of throttle input by the operator, represented by "f," and an acceleration of the aircraft, represented by "a." The Examiner has interpreted the disclosed contact force threshold (i.e. the contact force is greater than zero) as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited " in response to an external disturbance being greater than or equal to a threshold value C, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal, wherein the external disturbance is determined based on an input amount and a control amount of a control system model of the aircraft;" Fig. 15; ¶: 0079-0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a frame to protect the rotors and propellers of an aircraft that further enables a user to fly the aircraft along a surface to perform a desired task using various forms of surface contact detection as taught by Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to prevent erroneous detection of the contact sensors caused by the weight of the frame connecting member or disturbance such as wind [Yamada; ¶: 0027, 0067].
With respect to claim 14, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein the power system further includes propellers driven by the motors, and the aircraft includes a propeller guard component surrounding outer sides of the propellers.”
Yamada teaches: “wherein the power system further includes propellers driven by the motors, and the aircraft includes a propeller guard component surrounding outer sides of the propellers” [Yamada; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamada discloses a frame structure, denoted 30 in Fig. 1, surrounding the outer sides of four rotors/propellers, denoted 22 in Fig. 1; Fig. 1; ¶: 0028-0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a frame to protect the rotors and propellers of an aircraft that further enables a user to fly the aircraft along a surface to perform a desired task using various forms of surface contact detection as taught by Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to prevent erroneous detection of the contact sensors caused by the weight of the frame connecting member or disturbance such as wind [Yamada; ¶: 0027, 0067].
With respect to claim 16, Cai does not specifically state: “wherein the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to further cause the device to at least: In response to the collision being caused by a manual control operation of a user, control all the motors to accelerate according to the manual control operation of the user.”
Yamada teaches: “wherein the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to further cause the device to at least: In response to the collision being caused by a manual control operation of a user, control all the motors to accelerate according to the manual control operation of the user” [Yamada; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamada discloses allowing the user of the multicopter to manually activate an automatic sticking control function of the aircraft. When this function is active: "When receiving information indicating that the automatic sticking control is in an ON state through the operation command receive unit 80, the flight control unit 82 controls the drive unit 74 so that the multicopter 100 moves as operated by the user in the controller device 200 while controlling the drive unit 74 so that the contact state of the multicopter 100 with a wall or ceiling of the construction is maintained. That is, for example, when the user moves the multicopter 100 upward along a wall, the user can easily move the multicopter 100 along the wall by inputting an operation command for moving the multicopter 100 upward without inputting an operation command for diagonally moving the multicopter 100 that includes a component in a direction toward the wall and a component in an upward direction;" ¶: 0040; See also: Fig. 5; ¶: 0039, 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a frame to protect the rotors and propellers of an aircraft that further enables a user to fly the aircraft along a surface to perform a desired task using various forms of surface contact detection as taught by Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to prevent erroneous detection of the contact sensors caused by the weight of the frame connecting member or disturbance such as wind [Yamada; ¶: 0027, 0067].
With respect to claim 18, Cai does not specifically state:
“wherein to generate the trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality in response to the collision between the aircraft and the object, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to perform at least one of: in response to an attitude disturbance of the aircraft being observed by an observer to be greater than or equal to a threshold value B, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal;”
“or in response to an external disturbance being greater than or equal to a threshold value C, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal, wherein the external disturbance is determined based on an input amount and a control amount of a control system model of the aircraft.”
Yamada teaches:
“wherein to generate the trigger signal for characterizing an abnormality in response to the collision between the aircraft and the object, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to perform at least one of: in response to an attitude disturbance of the aircraft being observed by an observer to be greater than or equal to a threshold value B, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal” [Yamada; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamada discloses determining that a UAV is in a contact state with a wall and/or ceiling surface based on the pitch angle of the aircraft exceeding zero degrees in combination with the change of linear speed of the aircraft decreasing. The Examiner has interpreted the above disclosed combination of the pitch angle threshold and aircraft speed change threshold as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited: "in response to an attitude disturbance of the aircraft being observed by an observer to be greater than or equal to a threshold value B, determining that the aircraft collides with the object;" Fig. 14A, 14B; ¶: 0071-0078];
“or in response to an external disturbance being greater than or equal to a threshold value C, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal, wherein the external disturbance is determined based on an input amount and a control amount of a control system model of the aircraft” [Yamada; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamada discloses determining that a UAV is in a contact state with a wall and/or ceiling surface based on a contact force between the aircraft and the surface is greater than using equation (4). Equation (4) states that the contact force is calculated as a function of an amount of throttle input by the operator, represented by "f," and an acceleration of the aircraft, represented by "a." The Examiner has interpreted the disclosed contact force threshold (i.e. the contact force is greater than zero) as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited " in response to an external disturbance being greater than or equal to a threshold value C, determining that the aircraft collides with the object, and generating the trigger signal, wherein the external disturbance is determined based on an input amount and a control amount of a control system model of the aircraft;" Fig. 15; ¶: 0079-0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible as disclosed by Cai to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing a frame to protect the rotors and propellers of an aircraft that further enables a user to fly the aircraft along a surface to perform a desired task using various forms of surface contact detection as taught by Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an aircraft to perform a landing operation in response to a vertical collision being detected in order to resume flight as quickly as possible that is more robust in its ability to prevent erroneous detection of the contact sensors caused by the weight of the frame connecting member or disturbance such as wind [Yamada; ¶: 0027, 0067].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
MYEONG et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0123435 A1) discloses: The method of controlling a wall-climbing aerial robot includes allowing the aerial robot to fly towards a structure, allowing the aerial robot to approach the structure and recognize a wall of the structure, allowing the aerial robot to calculate a trajectory for landing on the wall of the structure, approach the wall of the structure after taking an orientation, and be attached on the wall of the structure, and allowing the aerial robot to move along the wall of the structure to perform a task.
YAMADA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0297681 A1) discloses: A flying machine includes a flying machine body including a rotor blade; a frame including a frame body supporting the flying machine body, and a pressing section that is pressed against a target object at least at two locations separated along a direction orthogonal to a width direction of the frame body; and a detector fixed to the frame, and having a detection direction that is a direction orthogonal to a direction joining the two locations together and facing toward the target object.
ANDEWEG (United States Patent Publication 2020/0283144 A1) discloses: Disclosed is an unmanned aerial vehicle adapted to be positioned against a substantially vertical wall while hovering in the air, including a body and rotors, an arm end, a first leg end and a second leg end intersected by a front plane and adapted for together contacting the wall at three spaced apart positions, the front plane intersecting a vertical axis of the UAV at an upper side of a first plane spanned by a lateral and longitudinal axis of the UAV, the front plane extending at a first angle of between 45 to 85 degrees to the first plane; wherein the UAV is adapted for tilting upon contact of the first and second leg ends with the wall while the arm end approaches the wall, about the first and second leg ends and towards the wall, until the arm end contacts the wall.
WAKE et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0116910 A1) discloses: Being unable to restart when it collides with an object or crashes, an unmanned aerial vehicle, control system thereof and control program, for preventing damage caused by uncontrollable restarts and crashes is provided. The unmanned aerial vehicle includes a plurality of rotating bodies, a plurality of motors individually driving and rotating the plurality of rotating bodies, and a flight controller individually controlling the plurality of motors. The flight controller includes a collision/crash detection unit detecting collision or crash on the basis of a signal from a sensor, and a power cut-off command unit cutting off a power supply on the basis of a detection signal from the collision/crash detection unit.
Carrasco Zanini et al. et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0237860 A1) discloses: A system for landing and locomoting on a surface of a structure comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle having a plurality of independently controllable thrusters and an undercarriage including a frame with wheels at corners. The undercarriage further includes a plurality of bars pivotally coupled at respective first ends to the frame and coupled at respective second ends to the unmanned aerial vehicle; wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is operative to differentially activate the plurality of thrusters so as to tilt with respect to the frame of the undercarriage and to cause a net resultant force on the undercarriage to locomote on the surface of the structure.
AMSILI et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0041281 A1) discloses: A sensor wall placing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) comprising: a UAV frame; a plurality of motors; a mounting mechanism configured to detachably attach a sensor casing comprising at least one sensor, during flight of the sensor wall placing UAV, the mounting mechanism being connected to a top part of the sensor wall placing UAV so that the mounting mechanism is facing upwards from the top part of the sensor wall placing UAV, and upon detachably attaching the sensor casing to the mounting mechanism, a face of the sensor casing faces away from the sensor wall placing UAV thereby enabling the sensor wall placing UAV to perform a maneuver that results in direct contact between the face of the sensor casing and a target wall.
SIDOTI et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0097865 A1) discloses: Vertical take off and landing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising a multi-propeller propulsion system (“the system”), an outer protective cage surrounding the system, an autonomous power source, a sensing system, and a control system. The sensing system has an orientation sensor and a displacement sensor. The system has at least two propellers spaced apart in a non-coaxial manner. The control system controls the flight or hovering of the UAV. The control system reverses thrust on at least one propeller distal from a point of contact with an obstacle while controlling a motor of a proximal propeller from the contact point to generate lift, the thrust of the distal and proximal propellers being controlled to exert lift on the UAV to counteract gravitational force thereon and apply a moment of rotation about said point of contact to stabilize the position of the UAV or to counteract torque resulting from inertia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 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 A. Browne can be reached on (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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights