DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
2. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claim(s) 1-9
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
6. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
Therefore, claim(s) 1-6 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
7. Claim(s) 7-8, and 10-14 is/are directed to a device (i.e. an apparatus).
Therefore, claim(s) 7-8, and 10-14 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
8. Claim(s) 9 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (i.e. an article of manufacture).
Therefore, claim(s) 9 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Representative Claim
9. Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The recited abstract ideas are emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets] and they are analyzed in 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I section. The additional limitations beyond the abstract ideas are underlined below [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets]) and they are analyzed in 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II section. Claim 1 recites:
A method of detecting risk of tipping of a flying body during its landing on an astronomical object, the flying body including legs for landing, the method comprising:
acquiring first-attitude-angle information on a first attitude angle, the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g) using generic sensors];
calculating a second attitude angle, based on the first-attitude-angle information and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration [mental process/step];
calculating an attitude variation of the flying body, based on the second attitude angle at a current time and the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time [mental process/step]; and
detecting, based on the attitude variation and a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body, risk of tipping of the flying body during its landing on the astronomical object [mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
10. Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
11. Independent claim(s) 1, and 9 include(s) limitations that recite an abstract idea. As mentioned above, claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
12. The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers steps that could be carried out in the human mind. For example, “calculating a second attitude angle …,” “calculating an attitude variation of the flying body …,” and “detecting … risk of tipping …,” step(s) encompass(es) a user making observation, evaluation or judgement about a the tipping risk of a flying object, could all be carried out in one’s mind. The same user looking at the data collected, could form a simple judgement and conclude whether the center of gravity of the flying object and its position relative to the support base falls within the base or not. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
13. Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
14. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
15. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “acquiring first-attitude-angle information …” the examiner submits that this/these limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “acquiring first-attitude-angle information …” step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
16. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
17. Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “acquiring first-attitude-angle information …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
18. As established above claim 1 is representative of independent claims 7, and 9 and therefore claim(s) 7, and 9 is/are rejected for the same reason.
19. Dependent claim(s) 2-6, and 8 does/do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, and 8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
20. Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
21. To overcome the rejection, Applicant is advised to add the limitations of independent claim 10, into the other independent claims, which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
22. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
23. Claim(s) 10-12
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawayama et al. (JP-2021017086-A).
In regard to claim 10
, Sawayama discloses a flying body including legs for landing on an astronomical object, the flying body comprising (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0007 & 0015]: the probe of the present invention is a probe that lands on a celestial body [i.e., landing on an astronomical object] and conducts exploration. The probe 100 [i.e., a flying body] is equipped with multiple landing legs (101A to 101D) [i.e., legs for landing]. The procedure for operating the probe 100 with the anti-tipping function corresponds to the anti-tipping method. Examiner notes, in order to perform anti-tipping function, the probe must necessarily detect the risk of tipping):
an adjuster to adjust an attitude of the flying body (See at least Fig. 2, and [0016 & 0048]: the probe 100 is equipped with multiple thrusters (102A to 102D) [i.e., an adjuster to adjust an attitude of the flying body]. Examiner notes, a thruster is used to make alterations in the flight path or altitude of flying object which encompasses adjusting an attitude of the flying body); and
processing circuitry configured to detect, based on a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object, risk of tipping of the flying body (See at least Figs. 1-7, And [0018 & 0048]: the probe 100 is equipped with an anti-tipping control device 200 [i.e., processing circuitry]. In step S143, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines whether or not there is a risk of falling [i.e., risk of tipping of the flying body] based on the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the ground-fixed coordinate system [i.e., a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object]. Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig 1, the fall prevention control unit 212 is implemented by the anti-tipping control device 200 which is the processing circuitry), and
control the adjuster to adjust the attitude in response to the detection of the risk of tipping of the flying body (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0051]: in step S144, the anti-tipping control unit 212 selects some of the thrusters 102 from a plurality of thrusters 102 based on the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the ground-fixed coordinate system. Specifically, the anti-tipping control unit 212 selects one or more thrusters 102 that are positioned in the opposite direction to the direction in which the probe 100 is tilted. In step S145, the anti-tipping control unit 212 controls multiple thrusters 102 [i.e., control the adjuster to adjust the attitude in response to the detection of the risk of tipping of the flying body] to cause only a selected portion of the thrusters 102 to fire. Examiner notes, a thruster is used to make alterations in the flight path or altitude of a flying object which encompasses adjusting an attitude of the flying body).
In regard to claim 11
, Sawayama discloses the flying body according to claim 10,
wherein the adjuster is a thruster (See at least Fig. 2, and [0016]: the probe 100 is equipped with multiple thrusters (102A to 102D) [i.e., a thruster]), and
the processing circuitry is configured to control the thruster to adjust the attitude (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0025]: during landing on a celestial body, the anti-tipping control device 200 [i.e., the processing circuitry] selects some of the thrusters 102 from a plurality of thrusters 102 based on attitude angle information obtained by the sensor group 110, and causes the selected thrusters to fire [i.e., control the thruster to adjust the attitude]. Examiner notes, a thruster is used to make alterations in the flight path or altitude of a flying object which encompasses adjusting an attitude of the flying body).
In regard to claim 12
, Sawayama discloses the flying body according to claim 10, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the risk of tipping of the flying body after contacting of a leg tip of one of the legs with the astronomical object (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0031-0034]: step S110, the landing detection unit 211 detects the start of landing which is beginning the landing on a celestial body. The start of landing on the celestial body is defined as the moment when at least one of the multiple landing legs 101 first touches the surface of the celestial body [i.e., contacting of a leg tip of one of the legs with the astronomical object]. If the start of landing on a celestial body is detected, the process proceeds to step S120. In step S120, the fall prevention control unit 212 acquires the current attitude angle information from the sensor group 110 [i.e., to detect the risk of tipping of the flying body after contacting of a leg tip of one of the legs with the astronomical object]. Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig 1, the fall prevention control unit 212 is implemented by the anti-tipping control device 200 which is the processing circuitry).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. 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.
25. Claim(s) 1-9, and 13-14
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawayama et al. (JP-2021017086-A) in view of Reddy et al. (US-20180229857-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Sawayama discloses a method of detecting risk of tipping of a flying body during its landing on an astronomical object, the flying body including legs for landing, the method comprising (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0007 & 0015 & 0029]: the probe of the present invention is a probe that lands on a celestial body [i.e., landing on an astronomical object] and conducts exploration. The probe 100 [i.e., the flying body] is equipped with multiple landing legs (101A to 101D) [i.e., legs for landing]. The procedure for operating the probe 100 with the anti-tipping function corresponds to the anti-tipping method [i.e., a method]. Examiner notes, in order to perform anti-tipping function, the probe must necessarily detect the risk of tipping):
acquiring first-attitude-angle information on a first attitude angle, the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system (See at least Figs. 1-3, and [0019-0022]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information [i.e., acquiring first-attitude-angle information] and velocity information of the probe 100. The attitude angle information of the probe 100 is information used to determine the attitude angle of the probe 100. The fluctuations in the attitude angle of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. Specifically, the attitude angle information consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame [i.e., the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system], the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, and stellar information. At each point in time, IMU111 measures the acceleration of the probe 100 and calculates the velocity of the probe 100 based on the measured acceleration. Furthermore, IMU111 measures the angular velocity of the probe 100 and calculates the attitude angle of the probe 100 based on the measured angular velocity);
calculating a second attitude angle, based on the first-attitude-angle information and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration (See at least Figs. 1-3, and [0019-0022]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information and velocity information of the probe 100. The attitude angle information of the probe 100 is information used to determine the attitude angle of the probe 100. The fluctuations in the attitude angle of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. Specifically, the attitude angle information consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame and stellar information [i.e., the direction of gravitational acceleration]. At each point in time, IMU 111 measures the acceleration of the probe 100 and calculates the velocity of the probe 100 based on the measured acceleration. Furthermore, IMU 111 measures the angular velocity of the probe 100 and calculates the attitude angle of the probe 100 [i.e., calculating a second attitude angle] based on the measured angular velocity. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the attitude angle information consists of the attitude angle of the probe in inertial frame and stellar information. Accordingly, the second attitude angle is calculated based the first-attitude-angle information and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration. Furthermore, inertial frame is easily converted from one to another);
calculating an attitude variation of the flying body, based on the second attitude angle at a current time and the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0020 & 0038]: the fluctuations in the attitude angle [i.e., an attitude variation of the flying body] of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. The fall prevention control unit 212 determines whether the attitude angle information acquired from the sensor group 110 is abnormal information as follows. If the difference [i.e., calculating an attitude variation of the flying body] between the attitude angle previously acquired from the IMU 111 [i.e., the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time] as attitude angle information and the attitude angle currently acquired from the IMU 111 [i.e., the second attitude angle at a current time] as attitude angle information is greater than a threshold, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines that the attitude angle information acquired from the IMU 111 is abnormal. Examiner notes, the difference between two consecutive attitude angles is the attitude variation); and
detecting, based on the attitude variation risk of tipping of the flying body during its landing on the astronomical object (See at least [0038]: If the difference between the attitude angle previously acquired from the IMU 111 as attitude angle information and the attitude angle currently acquired from the IMU 111 as attitude angle information is greater than a threshold, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines that the attitude angle information acquired from the IMU 111 is abnormal [i.e., detecting, based on the attitude variation …, risk of tipping of the flying body during its landing on the astronomical object]).
Sawayama is silent on a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body.
However, Reddy teaches determining whether an aircraft, such as a drone, is in a potential dynamic rollover condition. The dynamic rollover condition detection system detects a dynamic rollover condition in any one of five ways: (1) when the thrust is within a predetermined threshold of the aircraft weight; (2) when one contact element is in contact with the ground when the other contact element is not in contact with the ground; (3) when a center of gravity moves past a pivot point of the aircraft [i.e., a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body, Examiner notes, the pivot point is the leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object]; (4) when the aircraft is located on sloped terrain; and (5) when the aircraft is inadvertently secured to the ground during takeoff (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0021 & 0025 & 0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Sawayama, by incorporating the teachings of Reddy, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – flying bodies, such that the tipping risk is detected when the attitude angle variation causes the center of gravity of the flying body moves past a pivot point, such as the tip of the landed leg.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Reddy, taking corrective action and mitigating factors associated with the imminent dynamic rollover (See at least [0006]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the flying object to stay safe and to prevent possible damages to the flying object.
In regard to claim 2
, Sawayama, as modified by Reddy, teaches the method of detecting risk of tipping according to claim 1, wherein the first-attitude-angle information includes at least one of information indicating an attitude angle of the flying body, information indicating an attitude angular rate of the flying body, or information indicating an attitude angular acceleration of the flying body (See at least Figs, 1-7, and [0020]: the attitude angle information [i.e., the first-attitude-angle information] consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 [i.e., an attitude angle of the flying body] in the inertial frame, the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, and stellar information).
In regard to claim 3
, Sawayama, as modified by Reddy, teaches the method of detecting risk of tipping according to claim 1, wherein the direction of gravitational acceleration is identified based on at least one of information acquired from a sensor included in the flying body, information distributed to the flying body from an outside of the flying body, or information acquired through a propagation calculation based on acceleration information and an attitude variation of the flying body during a free fall, the acceleration information being acquired from a sensor included in the flying body before start of the free fall of the flying body (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0019-0023 & 0044]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information and velocity information of the probe 100. The sensor group 110 are the IMU 111 and STT 112. At each point in time, the STT 112 measures the direction in which each of the multiple stars is located and outputs star information showing the measurement results. The fall prevention control unit 212 uses stellar information obtained from the STT 112 [i.e., is identified based on at least one of information acquired from a sensor included in the flying body] as attitude angle information to calculate the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame).
In regard to claim 4
, Sawayama, as modified by Reddy, teaches the method of detecting risk of tipping according to claim 1, wherein the start time indicates a time of start of landing of the flying body on the astronomical object (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0031]: step S110, the landing detection unit 211 detects the start of landing which is beginning the landing on a celestial body. The start of landing on the celestial body is defined as the moment when at least one of the multiple landing legs 101 first touches the surface of the celestial body).
In regard to claim 5
, Sawayama, as modified by Reddy, teaches the method of detecting risk of tipping according to claim 1, wherein the start time is updated every certain period (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0031-0034 & 0063]: step S110, the landing detection unit 211 detects the start of landing which is beginning the landing on a celestial body. The start of landing on the celestial body is defined as the moment when at least one of the multiple landing legs 101 first touches the surface of the celestial body. Step S110 is repeated until the start of landing on the celestial body is detected. If the start of landing on a celestial body is detected, the process proceeds to step S120. In step S120, the fall prevention control unit 212 acquires the current attitude angle information from the sensor group 110. The anti-tipping control device 200 performs attitude control (S140) or touchdown boost control (S150) after detecting the start of landing. Examiner notes, as portrayed by Figs. 6-7, the flowcharts include loops. That means, the instruction and the operations of updating the start time are repeated periodically).
In regard to claim 6
, Sawayama, as modified by Reddy, teaches the method of detecting risk of tipping according to claim 1, wherein the method is able to transition between a mode of setting a time of start of landing of the flying body on the astronomical object as the start time and a mode of updating the start time every certain period (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0031-0034 & 0063]: step S110, the landing detection unit 211 detects the start of landing which is beginning the landing on a celestial body. The start of landing on the celestial body is defined as the moment when at least one of the multiple landing legs 101 first touches the surface of the celestial body. Step S110 is repeated until the start of landing on the celestial body is detected [i.e., a mode of setting a time of start of landing of the flying body]. If the start of landing on a celestial body is detected, the process proceeds to step S120. In step S120, the fall prevention control unit 212 acquires the current attitude angle information from the sensor group 110. The anti-tipping control device 200 performs attitude control (S140) [i.e., a mode of updating the start time every certain period] or touchdown boost control (S150) after detecting the start of landing. Examiner notes, as portrayed by Figs. 6-7, the flowcharts include loops. That means, the instruction and the operations are repeated periodically).
In regard to claim 7
, Sawayama discloses a tipping risk detecting device for detecting risk of tipping of a flying body during its landing on an astronomical object, the flying body including legs for landing, the tipping risk detecting device comprising (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0007 & 0015 & 0018]: the probe of the present invention is a probe that lands on a celestial body [i.e., landing on an astronomical object] and conducts exploration. The probe 100 [i.e., a flying body] is equipped with multiple landing legs (101A to 101D) [i.e., legs for landing]. The procedure for operating the probe 100 with the anti-tipping function corresponds to the anti-tipping method. The probe 100 is equipped with multiple landing legs 101, multiple thrusters 102, and solar panel paddles 109, as well as a sensor group 110, an exploration device 190, and an anti-tipping control device 200 [i.e., a tipping risk detecting device]. Examiner notes, in order to perform anti-tipping function, the probe must necessarily detect the risk of tipping)
processing circuitry configured to (See at least Figs. 1-7, And [0018]: the probe 100 is equipped with an anti-tipping control device 200 [i.e., the processing circuitry])
acquire first-attitude-angle information on a first attitude angle, the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system (See at least Figs. 1-3, and [0019-0022]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information [i.e., acquire first-attitude-angle information] and velocity information of the probe 100. The attitude angle information of the probe 100 is information used to determine the attitude angle of the probe 100. The fluctuations in the attitude angle of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. Specifically, the attitude angle information consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame [i.e., the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system], the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, and stellar information. At each point in time, IMU111 measures the acceleration of the probe 100 and calculates the velocity of the probe 100 based on the measured acceleration. Furthermore, IMU111 measures the angular velocity of the probe 100 and calculates the attitude angle of the probe 100 based on the measured angular velocity),
calculate a second attitude angle, based on the first-attitude-angle information, the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration, and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system (See at least Figs. 1-3, and [0019-0022]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information and velocity information of the probe 100. The attitude angle information of the probe 100 is information used to determine the attitude angle of the probe 100. The fluctuations in the attitude angle of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. Specifically, the attitude angle information consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame and stellar information [i.e., the direction of gravitational acceleration]. At each point in time, IMU 111 measures the acceleration of the probe 100 and calculates the velocity of the probe 100 based on the measured acceleration. Furthermore, IMU 111 measures the angular velocity of the probe 100 and calculates the attitude angle of the probe 100 [i.e., calculate a second attitude angle] based on the measured angular velocity. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the attitude angle information consists of the attitude angle of the probe in inertial frame and stellar information. Accordingly, the second attitude angle is calculated based the first-attitude-angle information and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration. Furthermore, inertial frame is easily converted from one to another),
calculate an attitude variation of the flying body, based on the second attitude angle at a current time and the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0020 & 0038]: the fluctuations in the attitude angle [i.e., an attitude variation of the flying body] of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. The fall prevention control unit 212 determines whether the attitude angle information acquired from the sensor group 110 is abnormal information as follows. If the difference [i.e., calculate an attitude variation of the flying body] between the attitude angle previously acquired from the IMU 111 [i.e., the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time] as attitude angle information and the attitude angle currently acquired from the IMU 111 [i.e., the second attitude angle at a current time] as attitude angle information is greater than a threshold, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines that the attitude angle information acquired from the IMU 111 is abnormal. Examiner notes, the difference between two consecutive attitude angles is the attitude variation), and
detect, based on the attitude variation (See at least [0038]: If the difference between the attitude angle previously acquired from the IMU 111 as attitude angle information and the attitude angle currently acquired from the IMU 111 as attitude angle information is greater than a threshold, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines that the attitude angle information acquired from the IMU 111 is abnormal [i.e., detect, based on the attitude variation …, risk of tipping of the flying body during its landing on the astronomical object]).
Sawayama is silent on a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body.
However, Reddy teaches determining whether an aircraft, such as a drone, is in a potential dynamic rollover condition. The dynamic rollover condition detection system detects a dynamic rollover condition in any one of five ways: (1) when the thrust is within a predetermined threshold of the aircraft weight; (2) when one contact element is in contact with the ground when the other contact element is not in contact with the ground; (3) when a center of gravity moves past a pivot point of the aircraft [i.e., a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body, Examiner notes, the pivot point is the leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object]; (4) when the aircraft is located on sloped terrain; and (5) when the aircraft is inadvertently secured to the ground during takeoff (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0021 & 0025 & 0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Sawayama, by incorporating the teachings of Reddy, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – flying bodies, such that the tipping risk is detected when the attitude angle variation causes the center of gravity of the flying body moves past a pivot point, such as the tip of the landed leg.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Reddy in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 8
, Sawayama, as modified by Reddy, teaches a flying body comprising the tipping risk detecting device according to claim 7 (See at least Fig. 1, and [0012]: the probe 100 [i.e., a flying body] is a probe that lands on a celestial body to conduct exploration, and it has a function to prevent tipping over [i.e., tipping risk detecting device]. The anti-tipping function is a feature that prevents the probe 100 from tipping over when landing on a celestial body).
In regard to claim 9
, Sawayama, discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to detect risk of tipping of a flying body during its landing on an astronomical object, the flying body including legs for landing, the program causing the computer to (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0007 & 0015 & 0025-0028]: the fall prevention control device 200 is a computer that performs control to realize the fall prevention function. The processing circuit 210 is dedicated hardware, a processor that executes a program stored in memory [i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program]. The probe of the present invention is a probe that lands on a celestial body [i.e., landing on an astronomical object] and conducts exploration. The probe 100 [i.e., a flying body] is equipped with multiple landing legs (101A to 101D) [i.e., legs for landing]. The procedure for operating the probe 100 with the anti-tipping function corresponds to the anti-tipping method. Examiner notes, in order to perform anti-tipping function, the probe must necessarily detect the risk of tipping):
acquire first-attitude-angle information on a first attitude angle, the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system (See at least Figs. 1-3, and [0019-0022]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information [i.e., acquire first-attitude-angle information] and velocity information of the probe 100. The attitude angle information of the probe 100 is information used to determine the attitude angle of the probe 100. The fluctuations in the attitude angle of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. Specifically, the attitude angle information consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame [i.e., the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system], the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, and stellar information. At each point in time, IMU111 measures the acceleration of the probe 100 and calculates the velocity of the probe 100 based on the measured acceleration. Furthermore, IMU111 measures the angular velocity of the probe 100 and calculates the attitude angle of the probe 100 based on the measured angular velocity);
calculate a second attitude angle, based on the first-attitude-angle information and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system, the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration (See at least Figs. 1-3, and [0019-0022]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information and velocity information of the probe 100. The attitude angle information of the probe 100 is information used to determine the attitude angle of the probe 100. The fluctuations in the attitude angle of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. Specifically, the attitude angle information consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame and stellar information [i.e., the direction of gravitational acceleration]. At each point in time, IMU 111 measures the acceleration of the probe 100 and calculates the velocity of the probe 100 based on the measured acceleration. Furthermore, IMU 111 measures the angular velocity of the probe 100 and calculates the attitude angle of the probe 100 [i.e., calculate a second attitude angle] based on the measured angular velocity. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the attitude angle information consists of the attitude angle of the probe in inertial frame and stellar information. Accordingly, the second attitude angle is calculated based the first-attitude-angle information and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration. Furthermore, inertial frame is easily converted from one to another);
calculate an attitude variation of the flying body, based on the second attitude angle at a current time and the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0020 & 0038]: the fluctuations in the attitude angle [i.e., an attitude variation of the flying body] of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. The fall prevention control unit 212 determines whether the attitude angle information acquired from the sensor group 110 is abnormal information as follows. If the difference [i.e., calculate an attitude variation of the flying body] between the attitude angle previously acquired from the IMU 111 [i.e., the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time] as attitude angle information and the attitude angle currently acquired from the IMU 111 [i.e., the second attitude angle at a current time] as attitude angle information is greater than a threshold, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines that the attitude angle information acquired from the IMU 111 is abnormal. Examiner notes, the difference between two consecutive attitude angles is the attitude variation); and
detect, based on the attitude variation (See at least [0038]: If the difference between the attitude angle previously acquired from the IMU 111 as attitude angle information and the attitude angle currently acquired from the IMU 111 as attitude angle information is greater than a threshold, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines that the attitude angle information acquired from the IMU 111 is abnormal [i.e., detect, based on the attitude variation …, risk of tipping of the flying body during its landing on the astronomical object]).
Sawayama, is silent on a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body.
However, Reddy teaches determining whether an aircraft, such as a drone, is in a potential dynamic rollover condition. The dynamic rollover condition detection system detects a dynamic rollover condition in any one of five ways: (1) when the thrust is within a predetermined threshold of the aircraft weight; (2) when one contact element is in contact with the ground when the other contact element is not in contact with the ground; (3) when a center of gravity moves past a pivot point of the aircraft [i.e., a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body, Examiner notes, the pivot point is the leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object]; (4) when the aircraft is located on sloped terrain; and (5) when the aircraft is inadvertently secured to the ground during takeoff (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0021 & 0025 & 0040]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Sawayama,, by incorporating the teachings of Reddy, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – flying bodies, such that the tipping risk is detected when the attitude angle variation causes the center of gravity of the flying body moves past a pivot point, such as the tip of the landed leg.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Reddy in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 13
, Sawayama discloses the flying body according to claim 10, wherein
the processing circuitry is configured to (See at least Figs. 1-7, And [0018]: the probe 100 is equipped with an anti-tipping control device 200 [i.e., the processing circuitry])
acquire first-attitude-angle information on a first attitude angle, the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system (See at least Figs. 1-3, and [0019-0022]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information [i.e., acquire first-attitude-angle information] and velocity information of the probe 100. The attitude angle information of the probe 100 is information used to determine the attitude angle of the probe 100. The fluctuations in the attitude angle of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. Specifically, the attitude angle information consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame [i.e., the first attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body in an inertial system], the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, and stellar information. At each point in time, IMU111 measures the acceleration of the probe 100 and calculates the velocity of the probe 100 based on the measured acceleration. Furthermore, IMU111 measures the angular velocity of the probe 100 and calculates the attitude angle of the probe 100 based on the measured angular velocity),
calculate a second attitude angle, based on the first-attitude-angle information and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system, the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration (See at least Figs. 1-3, and [0019-0022]: the sensor group 110 consists of one or more sensors that obtain attitude angle information and velocity information of the probe 100. The attitude angle information of the probe 100 is information used to determine the attitude angle of the probe 100. The fluctuations in the attitude angle of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. Specifically, the attitude angle information consists of at least one of the attitude angle of the probe 100 in the inertial frame, the angular velocity of the probe 100 in the inertial frame and stellar information [i.e., the direction of gravitational acceleration]. At each point in time, IMU 111 measures the acceleration of the probe 100 and calculates the velocity of the probe 100 based on the measured acceleration. Furthermore, IMU 111 measures the angular velocity of the probe 100 and calculates the attitude angle of the probe 100 [i.e., calculate a second attitude angle] based on the measured angular velocity. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the attitude angle information consists of the attitude angle of the probe in inertial frame and stellar information. Accordingly, the second attitude angle is calculated based the first-attitude-angle information and a direction of gravitational acceleration of the astronomical object relative to the inertial system the second attitude angle being an attitude angle of the flying body relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration. Furthermore, inertial frame is easily converted from one to another),
calculate an attitude variation of the flying body, based on the second attitude angle at a current time and the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time (See at least Figs. 1-7, and [0020 & 0038]: the fluctuations in the attitude angle [i.e., an attitude variation of the flying body] of spacecraft 100 are called dynamics. The fall prevention control unit 212 determines whether the attitude angle information acquired from the sensor group 110 is abnormal information as follows. If the difference [i.e., calculate an attitude variation of the flying body] between the attitude angle previously acquired from the IMU 111 [i.e., the second attitude angle at a start time preceding the current time] as attitude angle information and the attitude angle currently acquired from the IMU 111 [i.e., the second attitude angle at a current time] as attitude angle information is greater than a threshold, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines that the attitude angle information acquired from the IMU 111 is abnormal. Examiner notes, the difference between two consecutive attitude angles is the attitude variation), and
detect, based on the attitude variation (See at least [0038]: If the difference between the attitude angle previously acquired from the IMU 111 as attitude angle information and the attitude angle currently acquired from the IMU 111 as attitude angle information is greater than a threshold, the fall prevention control unit 212 determines that the attitude angle information acquired from the IMU 111 is abnormal [i.e., detect, based on the attitude variation …, risk of tipping of the flying body during its landing on the astronomical object]).
Sawayama is silent on a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body.
However, Reddy teaches determining whether an aircraft, such as a drone, is in a potential dynamic rollover condition. The dynamic rollover condition detection system detects a dynamic rollover condition in any one of five ways: (1) when the thrust is within a predetermined threshold of the aircraft weight; (2) when one contact element is in contact with the ground when the other contact element is not in contact with the ground; (3) when a center of gravity moves past a pivot point of the aircraft [i.e., a positional relationship between a leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object and a center of gravity of the flying body, Examiner notes, the pivot point is the leg tip of one of the legs having landed on the astronomical object]; (4) when the aircraft is located on sloped terrain; and (5) when the aircraft is inadvertently secured to the ground during takeoff (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0021 & 0025 & 0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Sawayama, by incorporating the teachings of Reddy, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – flying bodies, such that the tipping risk is detected when the attitude angle variation causes the center of gravity of the flying body moves past a pivot point, such as the tip of the landed leg.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Reddy in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 14
, Sawayama, as modified by Reddy, teaches the flying body according to claim 10, wherein the flying body is a drone.
Further, Reddy teaches determining whether an aircraft, such as a drone [i.e., wherein the flying body is a drone], is in a potential dynamic rollover condition (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0021 & 0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Sawayama, as modified by Reddy, by further incorporating the teachings of Reddy, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – flying bodies, such that the flying body is a drone.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Reddy in regard to claim 1.
Conclusion
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimizu (JP-7196668-B2) teaches a technology for landing a rotorcraft on such a landing surface.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
28. 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.
29. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
30. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights