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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “wherein vehicles moving in the vicinity of any determined vehicle constitute as many obstacles” should be “wherein vehicles moving in [[the]] a vicinity of any determined vehicle of the group constitute as many obstacles”
In claim 6, “wherein at least those of the vehicles moving in the vicinity of to one another” should be “wherein at least those of the vehicles in the group moving in [[the]] a vicinity of [[to]] one another”
In claim 9, “by considering the constant position correction” should be “by considering [[the]] a constant position correction”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
“motorised directional control members” to guide a vehicle in claims 1 and 10
“computer control unit” to perform computerized controls in claims 1 and 10
“propulsion system” to propel a vehicle to follow a course in claims 1 and 10
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification reveals the following:
“motorised directional control members” : disclosed as electromechanical actuators (See at least Page 4, line 33-Page 5, line 1 in the specification)
“computer control unit” : disclosed as one or more processors (See at least Page 5, lines 14-17 in the specification)
“propulsion system” : disclosed as propeller motors or turbojets (See at least Page 4, lines 31-32 in the specification)
The above disclosures constitute adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, so no 112 rejections are given and no further action is required by applicant with regard to the above 112(f) interpretation.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, applicant recites, “at least one of the following operating parameters: instantaneous power consumed by the vehicle, average power consumed by the vehicle, load factor, vehicle speed, vehicle acceleration, etc.” (emphasis added).
However, the limitation “etc.” creates uncertainty as to the metes and bounds of the recited list, thus rendering the claimed indefinite. The claims are accordingly rejected under 112(b). Applicant can overcome this rejection by amending the claim to read as follows:
“at least one of the following operating parameters: instantaneous power consumed by the vehicle, average power consumed by the vehicle, load factor, vehicle speed, vehicle acceleration
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 11282398 B1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230058405 A1), hereinafter referred to as Watson and Chen, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Watson discloses A method of controlling at least one vehicle (See at least Fig. 9 in Watson: Watson discloses the process flow performed by the autonomous separation unit installed on an aircraft [See at least Watson, Col 11, lines 9-11]) comprising a propulsion system (Watson discloses directing the target trajectories each aircraft should fly to regain or maintain safe separation from one or more aircraft in a shared airspace [See at least Watson, Col 1, lines 63-65]. Following a trajectory requires propulsion), directional control members (Watson discloses directing the target trajectories each aircraft should fly to regain or maintain safe separation from one or more aircraft in a shared airspace [See at least Watson, Col 1, lines 63-65]. Following a trajectory requires directional control) and a computer control unit connected to the directional control members in order to control said members (See at least Fig. 9 in Watson: Watson discloses that the flight management system is activated in step 902, and can be set to manual 903 or autopilot 904 operation of the aircraft [See at least Watson, Col 11, lines 27-29]) and guide the vehicle along a reference course (Watson discloses directing the target trajectories each aircraft should fly to regain or maintain safe separation from one or more aircraft in a shared airspace [See at least Watson, Col 1, lines 63-65]), comprising:
determining a speed correction (See at least Fig. 9 in Watson: Watson discloses that in step 915 the target separation vector is generated [See at least Watson, Col 11, line 64]. Also see at least Figs. 8A-8B in Watson: Watson discloses that each display shows recommended target separation (SEP) vectors 804A and 804B that each aircraft should pursue, indicating the system-determined direction and speed autonomously provided by each aircraft's ASU system [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 51-55]) in order to maintain a first minimum distance between the vehicle and any obstacle along the reference course (See at least Figs. 8A-8B in Watson: Watson discloses that In display 801A, the vector arrow 804A shows the system-recommended target vector from flight WW231 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 55-57]. Watson further discloses that, Similarly, separation vector 804B in display 801B identified the target separation vector proposed for WW231 as it seeks separation from NWA972 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 57-59]. Watson further discloses that Both separation vectors lead to the respective centroid destinations generated autonomously by each system relative to its own penetrated airspace [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 59-62]. Watson further discloses that Accordingly, both separation vectors move in generally complementary directions away from each other to reestablish separation [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 62-64]);
transforming the speed correction into a position correction and estimating the position correction over a prediction horizon to determine a course to be followed over the prediction horizon (See at least Figs. 8A-8B in Watson: Watson discloses that In display 801A, the vector arrow 804A shows the system-recommended target vector from flight WW231 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 55-57]. Watson further discloses that, Similarly, separation vector 804B in display 801B identified the target separation vector proposed for WW231 as it seeks separation from NWA972 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 57-59]. Watson further discloses that Both separation vectors lead to the respective centroid destinations generated autonomously by each system relative to its own penetrated airspace [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 59-62]. Watson further discloses that Accordingly, both separation vectors move in generally complementary directions away from each other to reestablish separation [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 62-64]);
determining controls to be applied to the propulsion system and to the directional control members over the prediction horizon in order to follow the course to be followed (See at least Figs. 8A-8B in Watson: Watson discloses that In display 801A, the vector arrow 804A shows the system-recommended target vector from flight WW231 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 55-57]. Watson further discloses that, Similarly, separation vector 804B in display 801B identified the target separation vector proposed for WW231 as it seeks separation from NWA972 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 57-59]. Watson further discloses that Both separation vectors lead to the respective centroid destinations generated autonomously by each system relative to its own penetrated airspace [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 59-62]. Watson further discloses that Accordingly, both separation vectors move in generally complementary directions away from each other to reestablish separation [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 62-64]) by applying an avoidance constraint corresponding to a second minimum distance between the vehicle and any obstacle along the course to be followed over the prediction horizon, the second minimum distance being less than the first minimum distance and the avoidance constraint being applied when it is predicted that the vehicle and the obstacle are separated by a distance less than the second minimum distance (See at least Fig. 9 in Watson: Watson discloses that in step 909, if separation is violated and the approaching aircraft has penetrated the reference formation airspace, then in step 910 the incoming distance is checked to see if it is so close and closing so quickly requiring that the system automatically hands off to TCAS in step 911 [See at least Watson, Col 11, lines 54-59]. Watson further discloses that risk triggers can be set to govern how far away a potentially-penetrating aircraft should be before being tracked by the system and considered a threat, and when the proximity of an aircraft is such that the separation system is suspended and the Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) takes over [See at least Watson, Col 11, lines 34-38]. It will be appreciated from Fig. 9 that the distance that triggers TCAS in steps 910-911 is smaller than the distance that results in calculation of a new separation vector, and that after the calculation of the new separation vector at 915, the method loops to check for violation of the smaller distance that triggers TCAS once again at steps 910-911 while the vehicle is executing the new separation vector).
However, Watson does not explicitly teach the method wherein the direction control members are motorised.
However, Chen does teach a method wherein the direction control members of a UAV in a swarm of UAVs is motorised (Chen teaches that The ESC may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to control the speed and direction of the motors and accordingly control the speed and direction of movement of the UAV 302 [See at least Chen, 0041]). Both Chen and Watson teach methods for flying UAVs in a swarm. However, only Chen explicitly teaches where the direction of each UAV may be controlled using motors.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UAVs of Watson to also change direction using motors, as in Chen. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this is an obvious means for propelling and steering UAVs.
Regarding claim 5, Watson in view of Chen teaches The method according to claim 1, applied to a plurality of vehicles moving in a group, wherein vehicles moving in the vicinity of any determined vehicle constitute as many obstacles for said determined vehicle (See at least Fig. 9 in Watson: Watson discloses that In step 909, the approaching aircraft is evaluated to determine if it has penetrated the reference formation airspace of the aircraft [See at least Watson, Col 11, lines 50-52]. Watson further teach that, in step 909, if separation is violated and the approaching aircraft has penetrated the reference formation airspace, then in step 910 the incoming distance is checked to see if it is so close and closing so quickly requiring that the system automatically hands off to TCAS in step 911 [See at least Watson, Col 11, lines 54-59]).
Regarding claim 6, Watson in view of Chen teaches The method according to Claim 5, wherein at least those of the vehicles moving in the vicinity of to one another communicate their positions with one another (See at least Fig. 1 in Watson: Watson discloses that Satellites 101 are always orbiting the globe, collecting data from onboard transponders, and transmitting data to other aircraft 102, ground stations 103, and airport control towers 104 [See at least Watson, Col 7, lines 41-44]. Watson further discloses that Aircraft, in turn, are transmitting data to other aircraft and to ground stations as well [See at least Watson, Col 7, lines 44-46]. Watson further discloses that The data being broadcast and received include identification, position, altitude, airspeed, category, climbing, descending, and turning information updated typically on a second-by-second basis [See at least Watson, Col 7, lines 46-49]. Watson further discloses that Within this data-rich context, aircraft separation relative to established minimum standards is also tracked, including longitudinal and lateral separation 105, as well as the vertical separation 106 between aircraft [See at least Watson, Col 7, lines 49-53]).
Regarding claim 7, Watson in view of Chen teaches The method according to Claim 5(See at least Fig. 1 in Watson: Watson discloses that Satellites 101 are always orbiting the globe, collecting data from onboard transponders, and transmitting data to other aircraft 102, ground stations 103, and airport control towers 104 [See at least Watson, Col 7, lines 41-44]. Watson further discloses that Aircraft, in turn, are transmitting data to other aircraft and to ground stations as well [See at least Watson, Col 7, lines 44-46]. Watson further discloses that The data being broadcast and received include identification, position, altitude, airspeed, category, climbing, descending, and turning information updated typically on a second-by-second basis [See at least Watson, Col 7, lines 46-49]. Watson further discloses that Within this data-rich context, aircraft separation relative to established minimum standards is also tracked, including longitudinal and lateral separation 105, as well as the vertical separation 106 between aircraft [See at least Watson, Col 7, lines 49-53]. Since aircraft detect their own positions, it will be appreciated that when they transmit their own positions to each other, then they are technically transmitting, to each other, a position of a detected obstacle—namely, themselves).
Regarding claim 8, Watson in view of Chen teaches The method according to Claim 5, wherein the speed correction is determined (See at least Fig. 9 in Watson: Watson discloses that in step 915 the target separation vector is generated [See at least Watson, Col 11, line 64]. Also see at least Figs. 8A-8B in Watson: Watson discloses that each display shows recommended target separation (SEP) vectors 804A and 804B that each aircraft should pursue, indicating the system-determined direction and speed autonomously provided by each aircraft's ASU system [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 51-55]) to maintain a pre-determined geometric configuration of the vehicles as they move along the reference course (See at least Figs. 8A-8B in Watson: Watson discloses that In display 801A, the vector arrow 804A shows the system-recommended target vector from flight WW231 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 55-57]. Watson further discloses that, Similarly, separation vector 804B in display 801B identified the target separation vector proposed for WW231 as it seeks separation from NWA972 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 57-59]. Watson further discloses that Both separation vectors lead to the respective centroid destinations generated autonomously by each system relative to its own penetrated airspace [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 59-62]. Watson further discloses that Accordingly, both separation vectors move in generally complementary directions away from each other to reestablish separation [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 62-64]. It will be appreciated that this detection and correction occurs when the vehicles are present along some point between the start and end point, inclusive, of a pre-established course).
Regarding claim 9, Watson in view of Chen teaches The method according to Claim 1, wherein the position correction over the prediction horizon is estimated:
by considering the constant position correction over the prediction horizon; and/or
by linear interpolation on the basis of measured velocities; and/or
by a vehicle model (See at least Figs. 8A-8B in Watson: Watson discloses that In display 801A, the vector arrow 804A shows the system-recommended target vector from flight WW231 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 55-57]. Watson further discloses that, Similarly, separation vector 804B in display 801B identified the target separation vector proposed for WW231 as it seeks separation from NWA972 [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 57-59]. Watson further discloses that Both separation vectors lead to the respective centroid destinations generated autonomously by each system relative to its own penetrated airspace [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 59-62]. Watson further discloses that Accordingly, both separation vectors move in generally complementary directions away from each other to reestablish separation [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 62-64]. These models of the aircraft may broadly be regarded as “vehicle models”).
Regarding claim 10, Watson in view of Chen teaches The vehicle comprising a propulsion system (Watson discloses directing the target trajectories each aircraft should fly to regain or maintain safe separation from one or more aircraft in a shared airspace [See at least Watson, Col 1, lines 63-65]. Following a trajectory requires propulsion), motorised directional control members (Chen teaches that The ESC may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to control the speed and direction of the motors and accordingly control the speed and direction of movement of the UAV 302 [See at least Chen, 0041]) and a computer control unit connected to the motorised directional control members and arranged in order to control said members (See at least Fig. 9 in Watson: Watson discloses that the flight management system is activated in step 902, and can be set to manual 903 or autopilot 904 operation of the aircraft [See at least Watson, Col 11, lines 27-29]) by applying the method in accordance with Claim 1 (See at least the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 11282398 B1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230058405 A1) in further view of He et al. (US 20220383484 A1), hereinafter referred to as He.
Regarding claim 2, Watson in view of Chen teaches The method according to Claim 1.
However, Watson does not explicitly teach the method wherein the speed correction is determined by using a potential field algorithm.
However, He does teach a method wherein the speed correction is determined by using a potential field algorithm (He teaches that The operation of UAV in flight also includes obstacle avoidance control, in which the speed of the UAV is changed according to the current speed of the UAV and the distance between the UAV and the obstacle based on the artificial potential field method [See at least He, 0066]). Both He and Watson teach methods for flying UAVs in order to avoid obstacles. However, only He teaches where speed correction in order to realize that obstacle avoidance is achieved using a potential field method.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speed correction method for obstacle avoidance of Watson to also be realized using a potential field method, as in He. Doing so improves safety.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 11282398 B1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230058405 A1) in further view of Kashawlic et al. (US 20220404843 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kashawlic.
Regarding claim 3, Watson in view of Chen teaches The method according to Claim 1.
However, Watson does not explicitly teach the method wherein the controls are determined by using a constrained non-linear predictive model.
However, Kashawlic does teach a method for controlling vehicles flying in formation along a flight path wherein the controls are determined by using a constrained non-linear predictive model (See at least Fig. 4 in Kashawlic: Kashawlic teaches that The leading aircraft 100a flies over a flight path 420 [See at least Kashawlic, 0065]. It will be appreciated from Fig. 4 that flight path 420 is non-linear; it is curvy. Kashawlic further teaches that The flight formation control unit 104 maintains the automatic flight formation 400 (for example, the relative positions of the various aircraft 100a-e) as the leading aircraft 100a flies over the flight path 420 [See at least Kashawlic, 0065]). Both Kashawlic and Watson teach methods for controlling a plurality of UAVs to stay in formation as they traverse a flight path. However, only Kashawlic explicitly teaches where the flight path may be non-linear.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight path traversal method of Watson to also make the flight path which the vehicles must traverse in formation non-linear, as in Kashawlic. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that curvy flight paths are common in real life, so it is useful for vehicles to be able to traverse them in formation.
Regarding claim 4, Watson in view of Chen in further view of Kashawlic teaches The method according to Claim 3, wherein the controls over the prediction horizon for following the course to be followed are determined by also applying at least one operating constraint relating to at least one of the following operating parameters: instantaneous power consumed by the vehicle, average power consumed by the vehicle, load factor, vehicle speed (See at least Fig. 9 in Watson: Watson discloses that in step 915 the target separation vector is generated [See at least Watson, Col 11, line 64]. Also see at least Figs. 8A-8B in Watson: Watson discloses that each display shows recommended target separation (SEP) vectors 804A and 804B that each aircraft should pursue, indicating the system-determined direction and speed autonomously provided by each aircraft's ASU system [See at least Watson, Col 10, lines 51-55]), vehicle acceleration, etc.
Examiner’s Suggestion to Help Applicant Overcome the Prior Art of Record
On pages 8 and 10-14 of the specification, applicant discloses numerous equations modeling the aircraft and their characteristics. Applicant can overcome the prior art of record by amending the claims to include any of these equations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
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 JABR can be reached at (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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights