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 action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 3/18/2025. Claims 1-18 are pending and are examined below.
SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0030]: “UAL” appears to be a typo of “UAV”
[0031]: “creasing production” appears to be a typo of “increasing production”
[0050]: “Figure 1 depicts a top perspective view of the UAV, while A depicts the aircraft from the side, and Figure 3 depicts the aircraft from below” – this appears to be a cross-reference error, wherein the sentence should rather read: “while [[A]] Figure 2A depicts the aircraft from the side, and Figure 2B depicts the aircraft from below.”
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s)1 and 7 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claim 1, “reallocates power reallocates power” has an unnecessary repetition; Examiner suggests amending to: “
As to claim7, “communicative coupled” is a typo of “communicatively coupled”
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 16, the recitation “a rate limiter operable to control a rate of change of power sink demand of the plurality of power sinks below a total torque threshold proportional to a generator response capacity” is vague and indefinite. Namely, it is unclear whether (1) the rate limiter controls the rate of change of power sink demand of power sinks when the power sinks have a total torque below a total torque threshold, wherein the control is proportional to a generator response capacity; or (2) the rate limiter controls the rate of change of power sink demand of power sinks when the power sinks have a total torque below a total torque threshold, wherein the threshold is proportional to a generator response capacity. Applicant’s specification discusses the rate limiter at [0057], but the specification does not clarify what quantity is proportional to a generator response capacity. In light of the above, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1. Claims 17-18 depend from claim 16.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blinkov et al. (US20210339853A1; “Blinkov”) in view of Wake et al. (US20210309122A1; “Wake”), in view of Mestler et al. (US20160280386A1; “Mestler”) and in view of Coroban-Schramel (US20200366223A1; “Coroban”).
As to claim 1, Blinkov discloses an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) hybrid power optimization system, comprising:
a plurality of batteries (“one or more batteries” - ¶ 25.);
a plurality of power sinks powered via a common bus by the plurality of batteries (“The VTOL (i.e., vertical lift) system, including motors 110 and lift propellers 111, can be powered by a first power source that can be electrical, such as one or more batteries configured to provide electrical power in distributed fashion to the motors and lift propellers.” ¶ 25.);
a generator driven by a combustion power source operable to supply power to the common bus (“An onboard electrical generator (not shown) can be coupled to the internal combustion engine to receive power therefrom and convert the carbon fuel-based power to electrical power. The generator can then provide the electrical power to recharge a rechargeable battery (not shown) that is used to power the VTOL lift components. In some arrangements, the generator can also provide electrical power directly to the VTOL lift components.” ¶ 28.); and
a program of instructions executable by a machine wherein said program of instruction comprises a plurality of program codes for power optimization, said program of instruction comprising
program code for generator torque control wherein the program for generator torque control directs generator output responsive to power sink demand (“Power from the internal combustion engine can be received at a generator at a process step 410, after which electrical power is delivered from the generator directly to the plurality of lift propellers at process step 412. This can reduce the amount of electrical power needed from the rechargeable battery to power the lift propellers.” ¶ 39. See also ¶¶ 28, 41. Note: A generator providing power needed to power the lift propellers meets the BRI of directing generator output responsive to power sink demand (i.e., needed power).)
Blinkov fails to explicitly disclose: program code for power mismatch handling wherein, responsive to power available from the plurality of batteries being less than power sink demand, the program code for power mismatch reallocates power directed to yaw, lateral, and longitudinal degrees of freedom to roll, pitch, and vertical degrees of freedom.
Nevertheless, Wake teaches: power mismatch handling wherein, responsive to power available from the plurality of batteries being less than power sink demand, the program code for power mismatch reallocates power directed to at least yaw degree of freedom to roll, pitch, and vertical degrees of freedom (“In a case where the storage amount detection units 254 and 264 are provided, a detection signal is output due to a decrease in the storage amount, and the emergency return is performed, the attitude control operation around at least one axis of the attitude control device of the drone may be limited. For example, the drone has a function to simultaneously control the attitude of the rotation and progress of two or more axes such as the simultaneous operation of the forward movement and the yaw direction rotation and the simultaneous operation of the forward movement and the ascent. However, when two or more axes are controlled simultaneously, a higher current is required for the motor, and the amount of electricity stored in the batteries 25 and 26 is consumed quickly. In this regard, the emergency return is performed by a power saving mode that limits the attitude control operation in a part of the six axes, for example, the yaw direction, and the amount of electricity stored the battery packs 25 and 26 is saved.” ¶ 86. Note: Limiting control in the yaw direction to prioritize other axes meets the BRI of reallocating power because such redirects power from yaw control to other axes (e.g., roll).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blinkov to include the feature of: power mismatch handling wherein, responsive to power available from the plurality of batteries being less than power sink demand, the program code for power mismatch reallocates power directed to at least yaw degree of freedom to roll, pitch, and vertical degrees of freedom, as taught by Wake, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for conserving power in a hybrid UAV context while still ensuring safe control of a UAV. (Wake, ¶ 86.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claim limitation at issue of reallocating power from yaw, lateral, and longitudinal degrees of freedom as arriving at such would be obvious to try given that (1) Wake teaches the core idea of reallocating power from less-prioritized degrees of freedom when there is insufficient power available; (2) there is only a finite number of degrees of freedom (six) to reallocate power to and from in order to determine an optimal control scheme; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that roll, pitch and vertical degrees of freedom are the most critical to achieve Wake’s “emergency return” in the sense that the foregoing degrees of freedom are directed towards ensuring attitude stability while descending the UAV.
The combination of Blinkov and Wake fails to explicitly disclose: program code for a rate limiter operable to control a rate of change of power sink demand of the plurality of power sinks below a total torque threshold proportional to a generator response capacity.
Nevertheless, Mestler teaches: a rate limiter operable to control a rate of change of power sink demand of the plurality of power sinks below a threshold proportional to a generator response capacity (“At 212 of FIG. 2, the determined new electronic speed control throttle setting is modified, if applicable, based on power generation characteristics of the generator and provided to one or more electronic speed control units.” ¶ 35 and FIG. 2. “It is determined whether the anticipated power requirement is small enough to implement the determined electronic speed control throttle setting without modification. … [I]f the anticipated power requirement is less than a threshold, the electronic speed control throttle setting is not delayed/modified because the generator is able to handle the anticipated power requirement from its reserved energy (e.g., reserved inertial energy of engine) and/or handle the anticipated power requirement without causing a failure (e.g., estimated power requirement small enough to not cause an engine stall).” ¶ 36. “[M]odifying the new electronic speed control throttle setting includes modifying a rate of change to the electronic speed control throttle. For example, rather than an abrupt step-wise change to the electronic speed control throttle from a previous electronic speed control throttle setting, the transition is performed more smoothly/gradually.” ¶ 38; see also ¶¶ 39-40. See also ¶¶ 51-53 and FIG. 7 which describes the relationship between power and throttle. Note: Summarizing, rate limiting is performed when a power requirement is above a threshold, wherein the rate limiting is performed proportional to a generator response capacity.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blinkov and Wake to include the feature of: a rate limiter operable to control a rate of change of power sink demand of the plurality of power sinks below a threshold proportional to a generator response capacity, as taught by Mestler, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for ensuring a smooth transition of power sink demand while accounting for generator response capacity.
The combination of Blinkov, Wake and Mestler fails to explicitly disclose: a rate limiter operable to control a rate of change of power sink demand of the plurality of power sinks below a total torque threshold.
Nevertheless, Coroban teaches: a rate limiter operable to control a rate of change of power sink demand of a plurality of power sinks based on total torque (“When an increase in torque is demanded, the currents in the motor must be increased to meet the new demand. This cannot happen instantly. There is a limit to the rate at which it can be safely increased without depleting or damaging the battery or exceeding the capabilities of a dc/dc converter in the case of many current and proposed vehicle designs. It is important in many cases that the peak rate of increase in current, the peak current gradient, does not exceed a limit which cannot be met by the battery or an alternator feeding the battery. For this reason, the torque demand fed to the controller will increase or decrease in a manner determined by a predefined ramp. The ramp defines a rate of increase in torque demand for each point in time along the ramp. The ramp will generally be exponential in shape at zero or low speed but may typically be a different shape at high speeds.” ¶ 7. “The torque demand signal modifier 40 comprises a ramp up/down algorithm which defines and applies a maximum torque gradient limit for motoring and generating, and applies this limit to the initial torque demand. This is used to modify the ramp that determines the rate of increase, or decrease, of current over time.” ¶ 51.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blinkov, Wake and Mestler to include the feature of: a rate limiter operable to control a rate of change of power sink demand of a plurality of power sinks based on total torque, as taught by Coroban, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for limiting rate of change in consideration of torque produced by power sinks.
Indeed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claim limitation at issue in view of Mestler and Coroban. Mestler’s teaches a threshold-based activation of rate limiting tied to power requirement, relative to generator output capacity. Coroban teaches an explicit bridge between torque demand and power requirement in a rate limiting context. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Mestler’s threshold-based power requirement activation via Coroban to express the threshold in terms of torque to account for the relationship between power demand and torque — such represents a natural and obvious design choice in the field of hybrid UAVs.
Independent claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 2, Blinkov discloses: wherein each of the plurality of power sinks is a vertical or horizontal thruster (“thrust propeller 121 to provide horizontal thrust for the drone 100” - ¶ 26.).
As to claims 3 and 17, the combination of Blinkov, Wake and Mestler fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the program code for the rate limiter monitors a battery state of each of the plurality of batteries and controls the rate of change of power sink demand so as not to exceed a maximum battery discharge capacity.
Nevertheless, Coroban teaches: the rate limiter monitors a battery state of each of the plurality of batteries and controls the rate of change of power sink demand so as not to exceed a maximum battery discharge capacity (“When an increase in torque is demanded, the currents in the motor must be increased to meet the new demand. This cannot happen instantly. There is a limit to the rate at which it can be safely increased without depleting or damaging the battery or exceeding the capabilities of a dc/dc converter in the case of many current and proposed vehicle designs. It is important in many cases that the peak rate of increase in current, the peak current gradient, does not exceed a limit which cannot be met by the battery or an alternator feeding the battery. For this reason, the torque demand fed to the controller will increase or decrease in a manner determined by a predefined ramp. The ramp defines a rate of increase in torque demand for each point in time along the ramp. The ramp will generally be exponential in shape at zero or low speed but may typically be a different shape at high speeds.” ¶ 7. “The torque demand signal modifier 40 comprises a ramp up/down algorithm which defines and applies a maximum torque gradient limit for motoring and generating, and applies this limit to the initial torque demand. This is used to modify the ramp that determines the rate of increase, or decrease, of current over time.” ¶ 51.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blinkov, Wake and Mestler to include the feature of: the rate limiter monitors a battery state of each of the plurality of batteries and controls the rate of change of power sink demand so as not to exceed a maximum battery discharge capacity, as taught by Coroban, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for limiting rate of change in consideration of torque produced by power sinks.
As to claim 4, Blinkov fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the battery state includes instantaneous battery current discharge.
Nevertheless, Wake teaches: wherein the battery state includes instantaneous battery current discharge (“As the detection method of the monitoring unit, an arbitrary method may be selected from known methods of performing monitoring on the basis of the number of times of charge and discharge, an internal resistance, a relation between a temperature and a voltage of the battery, an impedance, a charge amount, and the like.” ¶ 45.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blinkov with the feature of: wherein the battery state includes instantaneous battery current discharge, as taught by Wake, with a reasonable expectation of success because instantaneous battery current discharge is a well-known battery state in the art.
As to claim 5, Blinkov fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the battery state includes battery voltage.
Nevertheless, Wake teaches: wherein the battery state includes battery voltage (“As the detection method of the monitoring unit, an arbitrary method may be selected from known methods of performing monitoring on the basis of the number of times of charge and discharge, an internal resistance, a relation between a temperature and a voltage of the battery, an impedance, a charge amount, and the like.” ¶ 45.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blinkov with the feature of: wherein the battery state includes battery voltage, as taught by Wake, with a reasonable expectation of success because battery voltage is a well-known battery state in the art.
As to claim 6, Blinkov fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the program code for power mismatch handling receives power available data from each of the plurality of batteries.
Nevertheless, Wake teaches: wherein the program code for power mismatch handling receives power available data from each of the plurality of batteries (“In a case where the storage amount detection units 254 and 264 are provided, a detection signal is output due to a decrease in the storage amount, and the emergency return is performed, the attitude control operation around at least one axis of the attitude control device of the drone may be limited. For example, the drone has a function to simultaneously control the attitude of the rotation and progress of two or more axes such as the simultaneous operation of the forward movement and the yaw direction rotation and the simultaneous operation of the forward movement and the ascent. However, when two or more axes are controlled simultaneously, a higher current is required for the motor, and the amount of electricity stored in the batteries 25 and 26 is consumed quickly. In this regard, the emergency return is performed by a power saving mode that limits the attitude control operation in a part of the six axes, for example, the yaw direction, and the amount of electricity stored the battery packs 25 and 26 is saved.” ¶ 86. Note: Limiting control in the yaw direction to prioritize other axes meets the BRI of reallocating power because such redirects power from yaw control to other axes (e.g., roll).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blinkov to include the feature of: wherein the program code for power mismatch handling receives power available data from each of the plurality of batteries, as taught by Wake, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for conserving power in a hybrid UAV context while still ensuring safe control of a UAV. (Wake, ¶ 86.)
As to claim 7, Blinkov discloses: a power sink controller communicative coupled to the machine (“power regulation controller” - ¶ 29.) and wherein the power sink controller issues commands to each of the plurality of power sinks in a low power mode (“At a following process step 506, the amount of power received at the generator from the internal combustion engine can be adjusted. Electrical power can then be delivered from the generator to the rechargeable battery to recharge the rechargeable battery to a sufficient level at process step 508.” ¶ 40. Note: The foregoing analogizes to the BRI of a low power mode because a lower amount of power is provided to power sinks compared to, e.g., vertical take-off – such analogizes to Applicant’s description of a low power mode at PGPUB [0111].).
As to claim 8, Blinkov disclose: wherein responsive to the UAV being in a takeoff or landing control mode, the power sink controller is in a high power mode (“A flowchart 400 of an example method of regulating power delivery in a hybrid VTOL drone aircraft during a vertical take-off process is provided in FIG. 4. After start step 402, electrical power can be delivered from a rechargeable battery to a plurality of lift propellers at process step 404. At process step 406, a clutch coupled to a thrust propeller powered by an internal combustion engine can be disengaged.” ¶ 38. “Power from the internal combustion engine can be received at a generator at a process step 410, after which electrical power is delivered from the generator directly to the plurality of lift propellers at process step 412.” ¶ 39. See also FIG. 4 and ¶ 41 which describes a similar process Note: The foregoing analogizes to the BRI of a high power mode because a higher amount of power is provided to power sinks compared to, e.g., horizontal flight – such analogizes to Applicant’s description of a high power mode at PGPUB [0111].).
As to claim 9, Blinkov discloses: the power sink controller being in the high power mode (“A flowchart 400 of an example method of regulating power delivery in a hybrid VTOL drone aircraft during a vertical take-off process is provided in FIG. 4. After start step 402, electrical power can be delivered from a rechargeable battery to a plurality of lift propellers at process step 404. At process step 406, a clutch coupled to a thrust propeller powered by an internal combustion engine can be disengaged.” ¶ 38. “Power from the internal combustion engine can be received at a generator at a process step 410, after which electrical power is delivered from the generator directly to the plurality of lift propellers at process step 412.” ¶ 39. See also FIG. 4 and ¶ 41 which describes a similar process Note: The foregoing analogizes to the BRI of a high power mode because a higher amount of power is provided to power sinks compared to, e.g., horizontal flight – such analogizes to Applicant’s description of a high power mode at PGPUB [0111].).
Blinkov fails to explicitly disclose: wherein responsive to the power sink controller being in the high power mode and the program code for power mismatch handling power reallocation, the power mismatch controller applies modifications to commands for each power sink.
Nevertheless, Wake teaches: power mismatch handling power reallocation, wherein the power mismatch controller applies modifications to commands for each power sink (“As in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 3, in a case where the storage amount detection units 254 and 264 are provided, a detection signal is output due to a decrease in the storage amount, and the emergency return is performed, the attitude control operation around at least one axis of the attitude control device of the drone may be limited. For example, the drone has a function to simultaneously control the attitude of the rotation and progress of two or more axes such as the simultaneous operation of the forward movement and the yaw direction rotation and the simultaneous operation of the forward movement and the ascent. However, when two or more axes are controlled simultaneously, a higher current is required for the motor, and the amount of electricity stored in the batteries 25 and 26 is consumed quickly. In this regard, the emergency return is performed by a power saving mode that limits the attitude control operation in a part of the six axes, for example, the yaw direction, and the amount of electricity stored the battery packs 25 and 26 is saved.” ¶ 86. “Further, the power saving mode may be a mode in which a part of the attitude control is relaxed. Specifically, for example, in the power saving mode, an angle after target acceleration or at target pitch may be changed to a value smaller than that in the normal power mode. Further, a target speed may be changed to a smaller value. Further, a target upward speed, that is, the target thrust at which the thrust of all rotor blades 101 increases may be changed to a smaller value. Further, a target angular velocity, that is, the target of each angular velocity of pitch, roll, and yaw may be changed to a smaller value.” ¶ 87.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blinkov to include the feature of: power mismatch handling power reallocation, wherein the power mismatch controller applies modifications to commands for each power sink, as taught by Wake, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for conserving power in a hybrid UAV context while still ensuring safe control of a UAV. (Wake, ¶ 86.)
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to implement Wake’s teaching responsive to Blinkov’s high power state because such a state would be recognizable as a state at which the UAV is at risk of depleting towards insufficient power, thereby requiring power mismatch control.
As to claim 10, Blinkov discloses: wherein in high power mode power demand of the plurality of power sinks exceeds capacity of the plurality of batteries and capacity of the generator (“A flowchart 400 of an example method of regulating power delivery in a hybrid VTOL drone aircraft during a vertical take-off process is provided in FIG. 4. After start step 402, electrical power can be delivered from a rechargeable battery to a plurality of lift propellers at process step 404. At process step 406, a clutch coupled to a thrust propeller powered by an internal combustion engine can be disengaged.” ¶ 38. “Power from the internal combustion engine can be received at a generator at a process step 410, after which electrical power is delivered from the generator directly to the plurality of lift propellers at process step 412.” ¶ 39. See also FIG. 4 and ¶ 41 which describes a similar process Note: The foregoing analogizes to the BRI of a high power mode because a higher amount of power is provided to power sinks compared to, e.g., horizontal flight – such analogizes to Applicant’s description of a high power mode at PGPUB [0111]. Further note that during Blinkov’s high power mode, both the battery and the generator are simultaneously supplying the lift propellers at full capacity, which necessitates that the capacities of both the plurality of batteries and the generator are exceeded.).
As to claim 11, Blinkov discloses: wherein responsive to the UAV being in a horizontal flight mode, the power sink controller is in the low power mode (“At a following process step 506, the amount of power received at the generator from the internal combustion engine can be adjusted. Electrical power can then be delivered from the generator to the rechargeable battery to recharge the rechargeable battery to a sufficient level at process step 508.” ¶ 40. Note: The foregoing analogizes to the BRI of a low power mode because a lower amount of power is provided to power sinks compared to, e.g., vertical take-off – such analogizes to Applicant’s description of a low power mode at PGPUB [0111].).
As to claim 15, the combination of Blinkov and Wake fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the combustion power source is a turbine engine.
Nevertheless, Mestler teaches: wherein the combustion power source is a turbine engine (“An example of a prime mover is an internal combustion engine or a turbine engine.” – ¶ 15.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blinkov and Wake to include the feature of: wherein the combustion power source is a turbine engine, as taught by Mestler, with a reasonable expectation of success because a turbine engine is a well-known combustion power source in the art.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blinkov in view of Wake, in view of Mestler and in view of Coroban as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Schank (US20190100322A1; “Schank”)
As to claim 14, the combination of Blinkov, Wake, Mestler and Coroban fails to explicitly disclose: wherein responsive to the UAV transitioning between horizontal and vertical flight, the power sink controller is in the mid-range mode.
Nevertheless, Schank teaches: wherein responsive to the UAV transitioning between horizontal and vertical flight, the power sink controller is in the mid-range mode (“Certain aircraft, such as VTOL aircraft, require increased power … for certain functions and maneuvers, such as during hover mode H, transition mode T, and engine failure mode in comparison to the power required during forward flight mode F, as shown in FIG. 4B.” ¶ 57 and FIG. 4B. Note: FIG. 4B shows that the transition mode T encompasses a mid-range mode wherein power required is in between hover mode (H) and forward flight mode (F).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blinkov, Wake, Mestler and Coroban with the feature of: wherein responsive to the UAV transitioning between horizontal and vertical flight, the power sink controller is in the mid-range mode, as taught by Schank, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that the transition state between vertical and horizontal flight requires a power requirement that lies between the high and low power requirements of both vertical and horizontal flight, respectively. In fact, Blinkov establishes that vertical and horizontal flight constitute high and low power modes (see rejections of claim 7, 8); in this regard, Schank provides the explicit teaching that a transition state would indeed be in the middle in terms of power consumption.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 12, 13 and 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if: (1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims; and (2) the § 112(b) issues are resolved.
The following is statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
Blinkov discloses: wherein the power sink controller is in the low power mode (“At a following process step 506, the amount of power received at the generator from the internal combustion engine can be adjusted. Electrical power can then be delivered from the generator to the rechargeable battery to recharge the rechargeable battery to a sufficient level at process step 508.” ¶ 40. Note: The foregoing analogizes to the BRI of a low power mode because a lower amount of power is provided to power sinks compared to, e.g., vertical take-off – such analogizes to Applicant’s description of a low power mode at PGPUB [0111].).
Mestler discloses: a threshold-based activation of rate limiting tied to power requirement, relative to generator output capacity, wherein activation or deactivation of the rate limiting is tied towards a threshold (“At 212 of FIG. 2, the determined new electronic speed control throttle setting is modified, if applicable, based on power generation characteristics of the generator and provided to one or more electronic speed control units.” ¶ 35 and FIG. 2. “It is determined whether the anticipated power requirement is small enough to implement the determined electronic speed control throttle setting without modification. … [I]f the anticipated power requirement is less than a threshold, the electronic speed control throttle setting is not delayed/modified because the generator is able to handle the anticipated power requirement from its reserved energy (e.g., reserved inertial energy of engine) and/or handle the anticipated power requirement without causing a failure (e.g., estimated power requirement small enough to not cause an engine stall).” ¶ 36. “[M]odifying the new electronic speed control throttle setting includes modifying a rate of change to the electronic speed control throttle. For example, rather than an abrupt step-wise change to the electronic speed control throttle from a previous electronic speed control throttle setting, the transition is performed more smoothly/gradually.” ¶ 38; see also ¶¶ 39-40. See also ¶¶ 51-53 and FIG. 7 which describes the relationship between power and throttle. Note: Summarizing, rate limiting is performed when a power requirement is above a threshold, wherein the rate limiting is performed proportional to a generator response capacity.).
Coroban discloses: a rate limiter operable to control a rate of change of power sink demand of a plurality of power sinks based on total torque (“When an increase in torque is demanded, the currents in the motor must be increased to meet the new demand. This cannot happen instantly. There is a limit to the rate at which it can be safely increased without depleting or damaging the battery or exceeding the capabilities of a dc/dc converter in the case of many current and proposed vehicle designs. It is important in many cases that the peak rate of increase in current, the peak current gradient, does not exceed a limit which cannot be met by the battery or an alternator feeding the battery. For this reason, the torque demand fed to the controller will increase or decrease in a manner determined by a predefined ramp. The ramp defines a rate of increase in torque demand for each point in time along the ramp. The ramp will generally be exponential in shape at zero or low speed but may typically be a different shape at high speeds.” ¶ 7. “The torque demand signal modifier 40 comprises a ramp up/down algorithm which defines and applies a maximum torque gradient limit for motoring and generating, and applies this limit to the initial torque demand. This is used to modify the ramp that determines the rate of increase, or decrease, of current over time.” ¶ 51.)
The cited prior art of record fails to disclose the specific requirements of claims 12 and 13, namely: “wherein the program code for the rate limiter is activated responsive to the power sink controller being in the low power mode and the power sink demand of the plurality of power sinks being below the total torque threshold” and “wherein the program code for the rate limiter is bypassed responsive to the power sink controller being in the low power mode and the power sink demand of the plurality of power sinks being above the total torque threshold,” respectively. Note well that claim 18 recites similar subject matter as claim 13.
While Mestler discusses activating or bypassing rate limiting in regards to a relationship between power demand and a threshold, Mestler performs the opposite of the claims wherein rate limiting is activated when power demand is above a threshold, and rate limiting is bypassed when power demand is below the threshold. Modifying Mestler to follow the claimed invention’s control flow would constitute impermissible hindsight bias as such would render Mestler as inoperable for its intended purpose. The rest of the cited art does not cure this deficiency.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights