The prior action is being vacated.
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 04/04/2025 (claimed priority date 02/09/2018):
Claims 21-40 have been examined.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “behavioral objective generation process 416” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “behavioral objective generation process” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
1. Claims 36 and 38 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 36 and 38, as being system/apparatus type of claims, recite the limitation/feature “behavioral objective generation process,” which is unclear whether a process is a part of the claimed system/apparatus, besides other limitation/features of claim 36, which are not process(s), and if YES, then what system/apparatus component/elements executes this process, OR this is a typo. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, it will be interpreted that the claimed/specified “touchdown detector generates a control command or signal that causes a behavioral objective generation process to generate a behavioral objective,” in accordance with Para [0065] of the instant specification, at least as published.
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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.
1.1 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: “external force and/or torque estimator;” “state observer;” “touchdown detector,” ”behavioral objective generation process;” “motion planner,” in claims 36-38.
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.
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.
1.1 Claims 21-40 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.
1.1.1 The terms “sufficiently supported;” “not sufficiently supported,” in claims 21, 31 and 36 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “sufficiently, “not sufficiently” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is unclear up to what degree/value/level/percentage/number, etc., of a sufficiency/deficiency, the claimed/specified “landing state of the aerial vehicle” and/or “aerial vehicle” are to be classified/introduced/determined/established/found, etc., to be defined and/or considered as the claimed/specified “aerial vehicle as being not sufficiently supported;” “landing state of the aerial vehicle as being sufficiently supported,” which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the terms “sufficiently;” “not sufficiently” are not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration.
1.1.2 The terms “about 1 second” and “about 2 seconds,” in claim 32 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about 1 second” and “about 2 seconds” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is unclear whether the claimed/specified “time that is about 1 second and about 2 second” is a time that is less/shorter than 1 second, or less/shorter than 2 seconds, or more/longer than 1 second, or more/longer than 2 seconds, and hence the claimed/specified “period of time that is between about 1 second and about 2 seconds,” is on lesser/shorter sides of 1 second and 2 second, or on bigger/longer sides of 1 second and 2 second, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the term “about” is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration.
1.1.3 Claims 22-30, 32-35 and 37-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
1.2 Claims 36-40 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.
1.2.1 Claim limitations “external force and/or torque estimator;” “state observer;” “touchdown detector;” “behavioral objective generation process;” “motion planner,” in claims 36-38 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear, as it is introduces in the speciation, particularly in fig. 2-4, Para [0056, 0065-0066], at least as published, and in claim language, whether the claimed/specified “external force and/or torque estimator;” “state observer;” “touchdown detector;” “behavioral objective generation process;” “motion planner” are structures/hardware/firmware/software. The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret that the claimed/specified “external force and/or torque estimator;” “state observer;” “touchdown detector,” “behavioral objective generation process;” “motion planner” are structure elements/component, similar to well-known in the art Computerized Processing Unit(s) (CPU).
1.2.2 Claims 37-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 36, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 21, 31 and 36 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.
2. Claims 22-30, 32-35 and 37-40 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
3. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
In performing initial search the examiner was able to find the closest prior art of record, which is Wang (US20190041871) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of O'Flaherty (US10996683), O'Flaherty (US11726498), O'Flaherty (US12271208), Zhou (US20180056743), Willford (US20170158327), Von Novak (US20170075360), Beardsley (US20160039541), Bostan (US 6604706) and Shin (US20180059665), who describe an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) landing method that includes detecting, via one or more sensors on-board the UAV, a positional change of the UAV while the UAV is airborne; and generating, with aid of one or more processors on-board the UAV and in response to the detected positional change, one or more command signals to decelerate one or more rotor blades of the UAV, thereby causing the UAV to land autonomously.
In regards to claims 21-40, Wang (US20190041871) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fail to teach or render obvious the following feature(s) / limitation(s):
in claims 21-30:
in response to classifying the landing state as airborne but in contact with the physical object, causing a propulsion system of the aerial vehicle to begin gradually reducing thrust while continuing to update the landing state based on updated estimates of the external forces and/or torques;
in response to classifying the landing state as sufficiently supported, causing the propulsion system to power down; and
in response to determining from the updated estimates of the external forces and/or torques that the aerial vehicle is not sufficiently supported while the propulsion system is gradually reducing thrust, causing the propulsion system to increase thrust to execute a recovery maneuver;
in claims 31-35:
determining, based on the estimated external forces and/or torques, that the user's hand is grabbing the aerial vehicle;
in response to determining that the user's hand is grabbing the aerial vehicle, causing a propulsion system of the aerial vehicle to gradually power down;
while the propulsion system is gradually powering down, refraining from attempting corrective measures in response to manipulations of a position and/or orientation of the aerial vehicle by the user unless updated estimates of the external forces and/or torques indicate that the user has let go of the aerial vehicle;
causing the propulsion system to maintain a level of thrust for a period of time before confirming, based on force data and/or other aerial vehicle state information, that the user is still holding the aerial vehicle;
in response to confirming that the user is still holding the aerial vehicle, causing the propulsion system to power down; and
in response to determining during the period of time that the aerial vehicle is not sufficiently supported, causing the propulsion system to power up to execute a recovery maneuver;
in claims 36-40:
in response to output from the touchdown detector indicating that the aerial vehicle is airborne but in contact with the physical object, the system is configured to cause a propulsion system of the aerial vehicle to gradually reduce thrust, and
in response to output from the touchdown detector indicating that the aerial vehicle is not sufficiently supported while thrust is being gradually reduced, the system is configured to cause the propulsion system to increase thrust to execute a recovery maneuver.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
TOYAMA (US20190009893) – (see entire TOYAMA document, particularly abstract – teaching an aircraft that includes; a plurality of rotor units each of which includes a propeller and a motor which drives the propeller, and generates thrust for flight of the aircraft; a controller which controls rotation of the propellers included in the plurality of rotor units; a balloon which laterally covers the plurality of rotor units; and a detector which detects a state of the aircraft, wherein the controller decreases a rotational speed of the propeller included in at least one rotor unit among the plurality of rotor units, according to a result of detection by the detector); and
Wang (US20160039300) – (see entire Wang document, particularly abstract – teaching systems and methods for swapping the battery on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) while providing continuous power to at least one system on the UAV. The UAV may be able to identify and land on an energy provision station autonomously; the UAV that may take off and/or land on the energy provision station; the UAV that may communicate with the energy provision station; the energy provision station that may store and charge batteries for use on a UAV; the UAV and/or the energy provision station that may have a backup energy source to provide continuous power to the UAV).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights