DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants have elected group !, claims 1-10, 19 and 20 to be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joerg (US 2021/0012666),in view of WO 2021068122, hereon WO122 , further view of Dins (US 2022/0121836).
Claim 1, “An alternate landing planning method comprising:”
Joerg expressly establishes that UAV systems used alternate landing positions in addition to their ordinary takeoff/home locations, stating that known techniques included “alternate landing sites for this RTH function” (para 0003) and identifying such locations as “rally points.” Joerg further teaches safe landing zones as alternate landing sites when the planned mission cannot continue;
“obtaining an alternate landing position configuration instruction to set an alternate landing position other than a primary landing position of an aerial vehicle;”
WO122 teaches that the normal return location can be the aircraft's takeoff location, but that the operator can intentionally establish another location. WO122 states that “the user can set another location point outside the take-off location as the new home point.” FIG 9, page 2, It further provides a user control specifically for “using the position of the aircraft as the home point.”, page 1; Joerg confirms that using a location other than the takeoff point as a UAV landing destination was known, describing “alternate landing sites” with one used “instead of the takeoff location.”
“and determining, according to the alternate landing position configuration instruction, a current parking position of the aerial vehicle as the alternate landing position.”
WO122 expressly teaches that, in response to the relevant user operation, “the control terminal can obtain the current position point of the movable platform,” , page 1, and use that position “as the new home point.”; thus, it would have been obvious from the teachings of Joerg and WO122 to have an alternative landing position marked after using that as a landing site or an alternative home position.
Claim 2, “The planning method according to claim 1, wherein determining the current parking position as the alternate landing position includes:”
The combination above teaches establishing an alternate landing position from the UAV's current position, including determining the position of a landed UAV.
“determining the alternate landing position based on information sensed by at least one of a positioning sensor of the aerial vehicle or an external positioning sensor carried by a landing platform, the landing platform including a carrier platform configured to provide the primary landing position.” (Joerg para 0026).
Claim 3. Joerg teaches The planning method according to claim 1, further comprising: outputting prompt information indicating to place the aerial vehicle at a designated area (para 0031).
Claim 4, “The planning method according to claim 1, further comprising:”
“obtaining alternate landing position distribution information around the primary landing position;”
Joerg teaches identifying and evaluating multiple safe landing zones/alternate landing sites accessible to the UAV rather than relying exclusively upon the takeoff location. Its disclosure expressly introduces “Safe landing zones (SLZs) ...(para 0031) as alternate landing sites.”
Dins provides a particularly useful spatial-distribution teaching. Its landing-zone quality map “depicts a visual representation of all of the landing zone quality values ... (para 0032) as a function of their geographic location relative to one another.”; thus, Dins teaches obtaining information identifying multiple candidate landing areas and their geographic distribution relative to one another.
“and in response to the alternate landing position distribution information not satisfying a preset alternate landing position distribution condition, outputting prompt information indicating to place the aerial vehicle at a designated area.”
Dins evaluates candidate regions against predetermined suitability thresholds. It identifies suitable sites as regions having “above-threshold landing-zone-quality scores,” (para 0034) and may choose the nearest location satisfying the threshold; therefore it would have been obvious within the skilled artisan to have safe alternative landing check.
Claim 5, “The planning method according to claim 1, further comprising:”
“Selecting, based on a selection operation of a user, a set alternate landing position near the primary landing position;”
WO122 teaches user selection of the home point and expressly permits the operator to select a location near the aircraft's current position. WO122 states that “the user can select other locations near the current location 1 as the current location of the home point to be confirmed.” Page 7,
“obtaining another alternate landing position other than the set alternate landing position;”
WO122 teaches multiple alternative ways of establishing another return point, including using the movable platform's position, the control terminal's position, or another user-selected location;
“and updating, in response to receiving an alternate landing position update instruction, the set alternate landing position to the another alternate landing position.”
WO122 expressly teaches a home-point modification operation whereby the current home position can be updated. It explains that the user may customize the current position information and thereby “update the home position of the movable platform.”, page 2.
Claim 6. Dins teaches, further comprising: outputting user guidance information (para 0017) of the alternate landing position, the user guidance information including description information of a parking position of the aerial vehicle (para 0004), thus it would have been obvious within the knowledge of ordinary skilled artisan.
Claim 7. WO122 further comprising, before determining the current parking position of the aerial vehicle as the alternate landing position: controlling the aerial vehicle to take off from the primary landing position; and controlling the aerial vehicle to land and park in a designated landing area (page 3 of WO122), discloses the taking off from the primary or home position and landing at either home or alternative selection.
Claim 8, “The planning method according to claim 7, wherein the designated landing area is determined based on a joystick control operation on a remote controller of the aerial vehicle or an area selection operation on a control interface of the aerial vehicle.”
WO122 teaches the claimed control-interface alternative. The user can modify the home point through the control terminal and can select “other locations near the current location” as the proposed home point.
WO122 further teaches graphical manipulation of the proposed home point through its control interface. Accordingly, even if the joystick alternative is not relied upon, the claim recites “or an area selection operation on a control interface,” and WO122's user-operated control-terminal selection provides the stronger branch of the mapping.
Claim 9, “The planning method according to claim 1, further comprising:”
“displaying, on a display interface, one or more of an identifier of the alternate landing position, an identifier of the primary landing position, an identifier of a position of the aerial vehicle, position information of the alternate landing position, position information of the primary landing position, position information of the position of the aerial vehicle, and relative position relationship information;”
WO122 expressly teaches displaying the proposed home-point location information and the movable platform's position on the control terminal. It further teaches independently displaying “the current position information of the home point to be confirmed” to facilitate the user's understanding and modification of the point.
Dins independently teaches a graphical landing-zone map in which candidate landing regions are represented according to geographic location. Its “landing zone quality map 306 depicts a visual representation of all of the landing zone quality values ... (Dins, para 0032)as a function of their geographic location relative to one another.”
“wherein the relative position relationship information includes relative position relationship between any two of the alternate landing position, the primary landing position, and the position of the aerial vehicle.”; WO122's interface presents the aircraft and home/return point spatially, while Dins's map expressly represents landing locations according to their geographic relationship to one another.
.
Claim 10, “The planning method according to claim 1, further comprising:”
“obtaining state information of the aerial vehicle at the parking position;” Dins obtains UAV pose information. Its “initial system pose data” includes information indicating the UAV's “initial physical location” and “initial orientation” and may be generated by GPS, an IMU, or another spatial-orientation sensor (para 0004, 0017);
“and generating, in response to the state information not satisfying a preset state condition, prompt information indicating that setting of the alternate landing position is abnormal;”
Dins applies predetermined thresholds to determine whether a proposed landing region is acceptable. Suitable landing sites may be regions having an “above-threshold landing-zone-quality” value (para 0034), while unsuitable regions receive lower scores. WO122 complements this with its teaching of outputting user prompt information when a home-point configuration does not satisfy applicable conditions.
“wherein the state information includes one or more of distance information of the parking position relative to the primary landing position, tilt information of the aerial vehicle, and obstacle distribution information of a surrounding environment of the aerial vehicle.”
Dins teaches orientation/tilt-related information through UAV pose data generated by an IMU or other spatial-orientation sensor. It also teaches obstacle/environment information. Its system evaluates terrain type and nearby conditions and determines whether identified landing sites “are relatively flat,” “are free of obstacles,” and are otherwise suitable for landing (para 0034).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021068122, hereon WO122 , view of Dins (US 2022/0121836).
Claim 19, “A control device comprising:”
“one or more memories storing instructions;”
The cited UAV systems employ computer processing/control circuitry for executing the disclosed navigation and landing functionality. Dins, for example, expressly describes an integrated computing device and processing circuitry coupled to the UAV for performing its landing-location determination and navigation operations.
“and one or more processors operating separately or together to execute the instructions to:”
WO122 expressly implements its method through the control terminal and identifies its processor as the execution entity. Its disclosed apparatus is a “control terminal” implementing the return-home control method.
“obtain an alternate landing position configuration instruction to set an alternate landing position other than a primary landing position of an aerial vehicle;”
WO122 teaches that “the user can set another location point outside the take-off location as the new home point” and provides the control-terminal option “using the position of the aircraft as the home point.” Joerg confirms that UAV return systems used “alternate landing sites” instead of the takeoff location.
“and determine, according to the alternate landing position configuration instruction, a current parking position of the aerial vehicle as the alternate landing position.”
WO122 teaches that, when the appropriate user operation is selected, “the control terminal can obtain the current position point of the movable platform” and use that position “as the new home point.”
Claim 20. Dins teaches The control device according to claim 19, wherein the one or more processors further operate separately or together to execute the instructions to: determine the alternate landing position based on information sensed by at least one of a positioning sensor of the aerial vehicle or an external positioning sensor carried by a landing platform, the landing platform including a carrier platform configured to provide the primary landing position (para 0004 and 0017).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights