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 . Claims 1-10 were originally pending in this application, of which claim 10 was amended and claims 11-18 were added in the preliminary amendments filed concurrently with the original filing of the application. Thus, claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-18 recite “An/an unmanned aerial vehicle” but should instead recite –[[An/an]] The/the unmanned aerial vehicle--, because “an unmanned aerial vehicle” was previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “a software” but should instead recite --[[a]] software--.
Claim 18 recites “a flight control system, a human-computer interaction system, and an electrical system” and should instead recite –[[a]] the flight control system, [[a]] the human-computer interaction system, and [[an]] the electrical system-- because “a flight control system, a human-computer interaction system, and an electrical system” were previously introduced in claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “lighting and equipment controller” in claims 1-4 and 7-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “lighting and equipment controller” in claims 1-4 and 7-18 uses a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic
placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Lighting and equipment controller: Figure 10 and page 12, last paragraph - page 13, second paragraph - In this embodiment, the lighting and equipment controller includes: a power module, an electronic switch module, an analog signal conversion module, a digital signal conversion module, an isolation CAN module, a serial port level conversion module, a temperature and humidity detection module, a main control module and an interface. Its internal structure diagram is shown in FIG. 10.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites “each component”. It is unclear specifically which components are required by the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted such that “each component” encompasses each component that was previously introduced in the claim, and therefore state information of at least the lighting and equipment controller, the lighting assembly, the signal input interface, and the fan are obtained. This is further supported by claim 8, which further specifies what state information is obtained.
Claim 1 recites “a corresponding external system”. However, “the external system” was previously introduced. It is unclear if “a corresponding external system” is the same as or different from “the external system” that was previously introduced. It is also unclear if the claim now requires more than one external system. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to --the
Claim 1 recites “each lighting assembly”. However, “the lighting assembly” was previously introduced. It is unclear if “each lighting assembly” is the same as or different from “the lighting assembly” that was previously introduced. It is also unclear if the claim now requires more than one lighting assembly. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to --the [[each]] lighting assembly-- to establish proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Claim 8 recites “each component”. It is unclear specifically which components are required by the claim to obtain state information. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted such that state information of at least the lighting and equipment controller, the lighting assembly, the signal input interface, and the fan are obtained, which is consistent with the interpretation of “each component” as in claim 1.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not explicitly disclose or render obvious the following limitation of independent claim 1 in its entirety:
“wherein the lighting and equipment controller is used to… obtain state information of each component in the system through the signal input interface, and feed the state information back to a corresponding external system”
Kessler (US 2018/0312274 A1), is the closest prior art of record, and teaches the following limitations: an environmental control system based on an unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least [0019] – the UAV may include sensors configured to sense environmental conditions, and a processor configured to adjust a lighting configuration based on environmental conditions to enable operators and/or others to see the indications), comprising: a lighting and equipment controller, a lighting driver, a lighting assembly, a fan, and a signal input interface (see at least Fig. 2, [0023, 0029-0031, 0038] - the UAV lighting system may include the light sources 150A-H, as well as at least one processor configured to activate particular lights and control the intensity, emitted color, and/or flashing duration and frequency… the UAV 100 may include a control unit 203 with a processor 260… one or more communication resources 290… rotors 130); wherein the lighting and equipment controller is used to receive an instruction from an external system, control the lighting driver, the lighting assembly and the fan according to the instruction (see at least [0038] - The communication resource(s) 290 may be configured to receive commands for controlling the UAV 100, or components thereof from the operators wireless control unit 232. The control unit 232 may provide requirements for particular UAV maneuvers or missions, inputs from a knowledge base regarding current conditions, a current orientation of the UAV 100 vis a vi the operator, predicted future conditions, aiming parameters of the camera 222, the location of the control unit 232 (and thus the operator), and/or information regarding environmental conditions. For example, the operator may input into the control unit 232 (e.g., button presses) observations regarding the visibility of the UAV light sources 150A-H, which the communication system 290 may provide to the lighting system processor 268.),
Gao (CN 114476103 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon) teaches the following limitations: an environmental control system based on an unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least [0039] – read UAV flight data, receive flight data from the sensor system, and send light display instructions to the lighting system), comprising: a lighting and equipment controller, a lighting driver, a lighting assembly (see at least [0039-0040] - the control system sends instructions to sensors to read UAV flight data, receive flight data from the sensor system, and send light display instructions to the lighting system), (see at least [0039-0040] - the control system is used to receive instructions from ground operators, send instructions to sensors to read UAV flight data, receive flight data from the sensor system, and send light display instructions to the lighting system),
Hu (CN 215769411 U, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon) teaches the following limitations: an environmental control system based on an unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least [n0009, n0015, n0026] – the remote terminal module is used to send operation commands to the MCU module… to control flight of the drone), comprising: a lighting and equipment controller, a lighting driver, a lighting assembly, a fan, and a signal input interface; wherein the lighting and equipment controller is used to receive an instruction from an external system (see at least [n0009, n0015, n0026] – the remote terminal module is used to send operation commands to the MCU module… to control flight of the drone), (see at least [n0009, n0015, n0026] – the remote terminal module is used to receive feedback information sent by the MCU module);
Wang (CN 202799291 U, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon) teaches the following limitations: an environmental control system (see at least [0004] – airport runway guidance lights), comprising: a lighting and equipment controller, a lighting driver, a lighting assembly (see at least [0013] - the runway guidance light equipment of this airport includes a constant current source, a step-up transformer, a rectifier circuit, a step-down resistor, a voltage comparator, an MCU controller, a current transformer, an RMS-DC converter, a microcontroller, a DC/DC chip, and an LED), (see at least [0014] – the MCU controller receives instructions from the operator and performs real-time control of the entire device; according to the instructions, it performs real-time communication control of each LED driver power supply, sends out various brightness signals and flashing signals), and obtain state information (see at least [0014] – receives return signals from the LED driver power supply controller to notify the MCU controller of the working status of the LED flashing light, and alarms for abnormal states) (see at least [0013-0014] - a constant current source, a step-up transformer, a rectifier circuit, a step-down resistor, a voltage comparator… A current transformer converts the input AC constant current signal into an AC voltage signal. The voltage signal is then converted into a DC voltage signal by the RMS-DC converter and transmitted to the microcontroller for detection. A program is written into the microcontroller to output the DC voltage signal according to a predetermined pattern, transmitting it to the DC/DC chip to drive the LED to emit light.).
Smith (US 2011/0204801 A1) teaches the following limitations: controller, a lighting driver, a lighting assembly (see at least Fig. 1, [0030] – feedback microcontroller module 2… output from the synchronous/boost converter module 3 via line 11 to LED module 4 provides a constant output voltage whose amplitude depends upon the operating conditions set by the end user and incorporated into an algorithm in the microcontroller), (see at least Fig. 1, [0030] – output from the synchronous/boost converter module 3 via line 11 to LED module 4 provides a constant output voltage whose amplitude depends upon the operating conditions set by the end user and incorporated into an algorithm in the microcontroller), and obtain state information (see at least Fig. 1, [0030] – feedback signals) (see at least Fig. 1, [0030] – output from the synchronous/boost converter module 3 via line 11 to LED module 4 provides a constant output voltage whose amplitude depends upon the operating conditions set by the end user and incorporated into an algorithm in the microcontroller).
Nonetheless, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Kessler, Gao, Hu, Wang, and Smith to create the claimed invention without the use of impermissible hindsight. None of these prior art references explicitly teach or suggest a lighting and equipment controller for a UAV that obtains state information of itself, a lighting driver, a lighting assembly, a fan, and a signal input interface and feeds the obtained state information of each of these components back to an external system. Therefore, only by using the Applicant’s specification as a road map would one of ordinary skill in the art have known to modify the prior art to obtain state information and feed the state information of each of the components back to the external system that provides the instructions.
Kessler and Gao each receive instructions from a remote station/terminal to control a UAV, and the UAV adjusts lighting and flight accordingly. However, in Kessler and Gao there is a lack of motivation to feed state information of each of the components back to the remote station/terminal because the UAV automatically adjusts the lighting as necessary. Kessler and Gao also fail to disclose boosting or bucking power to the lighting assembly for driving with a constant current. Hu teaches the concept of sending instructions from a remote terminal to an MCU of a drone, controlling the drone, obtaining state information and feeding it back to the remote terminal. However, Hu does not describe that the state information is for a lighting and equipment controller for a UAV that obtains state information of itself, a lighting driver, a lighting assembly, a fan, or a signal input interface. Hu also fails to disclose boosting or bucking power to the lighting assembly for driving with a constant current. Wang and Smith teach various aspects of lighting system where power is boosted or bucked to provide a constant current. However, Wang and Smith fail to disclose that this is implemented in a UAV which receives instructions from an external system, and an equipment and lighting controller obtains and feeds back the recited state information to the external system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known to combine the disparate features of Kessler, Gao, Hu, Wang, and Smith to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Cioanta (US 2021/0261250 A1) is directed to a drone system includes a drone aircraft connected to an air duct that terminates in a nozzle that emits a jet of air with a blowing force from the blower nozzle, such as for cleaning tall and hard to reach surfaces of structures and buildings or to otherwise blow objects, debris, substances and floating materials.
Bostick (US 2022/0177159 A1) is directed to an aerial vehicle electrical power system for use with a tethered aerial vehicle, and related methods are provided. The aerial vehicle electric power system includes a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) carried by an aerial vehicle. At least one electrical circuit is carried by the aerial vehicle. The at least one electrical circuit has a DC buck converter electrically in series with at least a portion of the plurality of LEDs. A tether is connected between the aerial vehicle and a power source positioned remote from the aerial vehicle. Electrical power is transmitted to the aerial vehicle and at least a portion of the plurality of LEDs through the tether. The electrical circuit minimizes variances in power supplied to the aerial vehicle and the plurality of LEDs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights