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 .
2. This Office Action is an answer to pending claims filed on 4/09/2025. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application.
Priority
3. This application claims a Chinese filing date of 06/03/2024; this date is considered.
Claim Interpretations
4. CLAIMS MUST BE GIVEN THEIR BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIFICATION.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard: The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) & MPEP 2124.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
5. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
This is a court’s decision: In Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), “[Appellant] claim[s] that his mathematical algorithm, when related to a computer program, will improve the existing process for updating alarm units. Very simply, our holding today is that a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use (e.g., a simulation on a computer), is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.”
Claimed limitations are abstract ideas: “...calculating flight motion information of the robot based on the remote controller control
information, the ground station control information, and the state monitoring information...” ) that the claimed invention is being practiced on.
And see pending claim 8; (i.e., a physical structure to, “...calculating rolling information of the robot based on the remote controller control
information, the ground station control information, and the state monitoring information;... “
And see pending claim 9; (i.e., a physical structure to, “...calculating waterborne motion information of the robot based on the remote controller
control information, the ground station control information...”
While the Supreme Court has held that the machine or-transformation test is not the sole test governing § 101 analyses, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604, that test can provide a "useful clue" in the second step of the Alice framework, see Bancorp Servs., L.L.C., v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can.,687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101). A claimed process can be patent-eligible under § 101 if: "(1 ) it is directly tied to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing..
The claimed feature generally refers to a concept of calculating to obtain related information based on certain general conditions.
The above claimed calculating step is an abstract idea of a judicial exception (according to 2019 PEGs), this is not integrated into a practical application because claimed steps are calculating relationships of data: a mathematical relationship. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they require mathematical relationships for a determination of certain information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
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.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 structural word “...is configured to ...” (or “step” with the word “...is configured to ...”) 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.
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.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1- 6 , and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al US Pub 20200307755 A – hereafter Zhang’755); in view of Oberoi et al (KR 20180107063 A hereafter Oberoi’063) in view of Liu Yong et al (CN 108638773A – hereafter Yong’773) and in view of McKeehan et al (US 11702203 B1).
A. Per independent claims 1, 6, and 10-11: Oberoi’063 teaches a structure, a controller, a memory and suggests a method having features:
- a robot based on origami principles, comprising: linkage components, central panels, and a plurality of sector- shaped panels, wherein:two ends of the linkage components are connected to a same number of the sector- shaped panels, with every two adjacent sector- shaped panels connected by a respective one of connectingelements (e.g., fuselage sections of adjacent panels 120; see “Referring now to FIG. 2, an example of fuselage assembly 114 from FIG. 1 is shown in block diagram form in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. As described above, the fuselage assembly 114 may include a plurality of panels 120 and a support structure 121. The fuselage assembly 114 can be used to refer to any step in making the fuselage assembly 114. For example, the fuselage assembly 114 refers to a single one of the plurality of panels 120, a plurality of the plurality of panels 120 joined or joined together, a partially made fuselage assembly, or a fully made fuselage assembly It can be used to do.
As shown, the fuselage assembly 114 can be made such that the fuselage assembly 114 has a plurality of fuselage sections 205. Each of the plurality of fuselage portions 205 may include one or more of the plurality of panels 120. In this illustrative example, each of the plurality of fuselage portions 205 is a cylindrical fuselage portion, a barrel fuselage portion, a tapered cylindrical fuselage portion, a conical fuselage portion, and a dome shape It can take the form of a fuselage portion of, or a portion having some other type of shape. Depending on the implementation, the fuselage portion of the plurality of fuselage portions 205 may have a substantially circular cross-sectional shape, an elliptical cross-sectional shape, an oval cross-sectional shape, a polygon having a rounded edge cross-sectional shape, or a closed curve cross-sectional shape otherwise It can have a shape.”); and “the plurality of panels 1508 may all be temporarily connected to one another such that desired compliance with outer mold line requirements and internal mold line requirements can be maintained during construction of the fuselage assembly 1200. That is, temporarily connecting a plurality of panels 1508 relative to each other may cause the outer mold line requirements and the inner mold line requirements to differ from one another while creating the fuselage assembly 1200, particularly while combining the plurality of panels 1508 And can be matched within the selected tolerance.”
- the central panels are located in a middle of the linkage components, and the central panels are configured for placement of a control assembly, the control assembly comprising a folding/unfolding motor and a motion control system;
Oberoi’063 does not disclose about a folding/unfolding motor ; however, Yong’773 teaches that idea (see Yong’773 the abstract “wo rotor-rotor automatic folding ground mode”). is configured to drive the connecting elements to control the robot to switch to any one of a multirotor configuration see Yong’773, a wheel configuration, or a waterborne motion configuration, wherein the multirotor configuration refers to a state in which the sector- shaped panels at each end overlap in pairs, the wheel configuration refers to a state in which the sector shaped panels at each end unfold in pairs, and the waterborne motion configuration refers to a state in which the sector- shaped panels at each end unfold in pairs within a preset angle range – this has been obvious with cited references because the panels are parts/components of a claimed structure (i.e., a robot/drone) to create a balance and small sizes possible structure when moving – this is a designer’s choice; and the motion control system is configured to control the robot to enter any one of a flight mode in the multirotor configuration (for example, see McKeehan et al US Pat. 11702203 B1 “a multirotor aircraft such as a tricopter, quadcopter, hexacopter, or octocopter that generates lift and controls flight based on varying the relative speeds of each propeller”)(see Zhang et al (US Pub. 20200307755 A1 para. [0003], [0019])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art of Zhang’755, Oberoi’063, Yong’773 and McKeehan et al.to build a drone with claimed characteristics since McKeehan already suggests a flying object having multiple rotors.
B: Per dependent claims 2-5: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated.
Applicant claims an obvious feature of a rotor component is mounted in the through-hole of at least one of the sector-shaped panels at each end Zheng et al suggest this claimed feature (for example, see Zheng CN 116844407 A) claim 9), the rotor component comprises a rotor motor and blades, and the rotor motor is configured to drive the blades to rotate in any one of the flight mode, the rolling mode (for example, a drone MQ-9 “PREDATOR” model taught by Zhou et al US Pat.9996976 B2), or the waterborne motion mode.
Applicant also claims that the rotor component is mounted in the through-hole of one
of every two adjacent sector-shaped panels (see Oberoi’063, similar rationale is provided in claim 1 above).
Applicant also claims that a side of each of the sector-shaped panels that is away from
the central panels is mounted with an arc-shaped support component, the arc-shaped support
component comprising a buoyancy assembly – the examiner’s position is it is a design-choice to mount certain support components on a panel of an object for an intent of use.
Applicant also claims a slot is provided in a mirrored configuration for each of
the connecting elements in the two adjacent sector-shaped panels, and the slot is configured to,
when in the state of overlapping in pairs, accommodate the respective connecting element that is
in the mirrored configuration; the examiner’s position is a familiar placement of a slot on a structure/a robot – this is a designer’s choice.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-11 are rejected.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights