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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed on 07/10/2026 to amend claims 1, 5, 9, 12 and 16 and the cancel claims 4, 11 and 18.
Drawings
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 "petrochemical-base engine", "battery-based engine", "power transformer", "electrical connectors", "jam sensor", "blade rotation control device", "operational sensors", "transmission device", "rotational blade", "power distributor", and "control module" 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The follow claim limitations do not appear in the instant specification; "rotational blade", "blade rotation control device", "transmission device" and "power distributor".
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, and 16 include the limitation “wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades” the limitation should read “wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates their respective blade in at least one of a clockwise rotation direction or a counter-clockwise rotation direction and wherein the rotation direction of each of the plurality of blades of the plurality of blade units is independent of the rotation direction of the other plurality of blades of the plurality of blade units”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 limitations are:
A “transmission device” as recited in claims 8, 15 and 16 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “transmitting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., there is no language defining the structure of the release mechanism in claim 1). The specification does not disclose any structure for the transmission device, nor does it contain any structure capable of “transmitting sensor data”.
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8, 15 and 16, these claims include the term “transmission device” but the instant disclosure fails to disclose the structure for such a device and fails to disclose structure for the function of “transmitting sensor data”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim limitation “transmission device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not include any structure for sensor data transmission and in the art of unmanned aerial vehicles a transmission device is not a known term in that is refers to a specific device having specific known structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 recites the limitation "blades" in line 7 of claim 1, line 7 of claim 9 and line 5 of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "power distributor" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10, the claim includes the same limitations as claim 3 and like claim 3 depends on claim 1. This fails to further limit the invention of claim 1 over what is claimed in claim 3.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman Lopez et al. (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Good et al. (US 2024/0201706 A1), Seino (WO 2024/142249 A1) and Yang et al. (CN 108556068 A).
Regarding claim 1, Guzman teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Guzman; Figs. 3-4) comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (Guzman; Fig. 4) having a battery powered motor (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) below; P. 0024; 11 “drive motors”) powering at least one rotational blade (Guzman; Fig. 3; 342) for achieving flight;
a plurality of electrically-powered blade units (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) below), each unit having a blade powered by a motor (Guzman; Fig. 3; 310).
Guzman does not teach a petrochemical-based engine powering at least one rotational blade for achieving flight, a power transformer connected to the engine, the transformer generating electrical power from the operation of the engine, wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades, and a plurality of electrical connectors for transferring the electrical power generated by the transformer to each of the electrical motors of the blade units for causing circular rotation of the corresponding blade such that unmanned aerial vehicle is operative to trim the vegetation using the plurality of blade units powered by the engine.
Good teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Good; Figs. 1-5) comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle (Good; Figs. 1-5; 10) having a petrochemical-based engine (Good; P. 0031) powering at least one rotational blade (Good; Figs. 2-4; 16) for achieving flight (Good; P. 0011 and 0027), and a plurality of electrical connectors for transferring the electrical power generated by the transformer to each of the electrical motors of the blade units for causing circular rotation of the corresponding blade such that unmanned aerial vehicle is operative to trim the vegetation using the plurality of blade units powered by the engine (Good; P. 0031). As best understood from the instant disclosure the electrical connectors are electrical connections provided between the motor or engine and the device being powered, as such, Good teaches the engine electrically powering the blade which would require electrical connectors and a transformer. This allows the system to be used for a longer duration without needing to recharge or replace the batteries (Good; P. 0011 and 0031).
Seino teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (Seino; Fig. 2; 10) featuring an internal combustion engine (Seino; Fig. 1A; 7a) that may be a diesel engine (Seino; P. 0014) connected to a transformer (Seino; Figs. 1-2 and 6-7; 8) for generating electrical power to supply power through electrical connectors to the motors (Seino; Fig. 1A; 14). While the motors taught by Seino drive the rotational blades of Seino (Seino; Fig. 1A; 2) for flight this is still applicable to the blades of the blade units taught by Gusman as the only difference between the systems is what is being driven. Such a transformer allows for the conversion of mechanical energy into electrical energy (Seino, P. 0015).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify unmanned aerial vehicle taught by Guzman such that the vehicle included a petrochemical-based engine like a diesel engine and to include a transformer and connectors to supply power to the blades like those taught by Good and Seino as such an arrangement allows the system to be used for a longer duration without needing to recharge or replace the batteries and allows for the engine to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy to power electrical systems.
Yang teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Yang; Figs. 1-5) comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle (Yang; 1; P. 0054) comprising a plurality of blade units (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8) each comprising a blade (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8), wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8) in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades (Yang; P. 0087, 0096 and 0099), Yang teaches that the motors for the blades are controlled separately and that the blades can be rotated in different rotational directions. This allows the motors to rotate the blades in different directions to clear a jam (Yang; P. 0103).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the plurality of blade units taught by Guzman such that wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades like the blade unit taught by Yang as it would allow the motors to rotate the blades in different directions to clear a jam.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the engine (Seino; Fig. 1A; 7a) is a diesel engine (Seino; P. 0014).
Regarding claim 3, Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang teaches the system of claim 1.
Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang does not teach wherein the plurality of blade units are wired in parallel. However, parallel wiring is well-known in the electrical art to electrically connect several components together to allow for independent electrical control of each connected component and to provide the same voltage to every component wired in parallel. Further it is one of two ways in which to wire a circuit, the other being in series. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to wire the plurality of blade units in parallel as the result of doing so, to provide independent electrical control of each connected component and to provide the same voltage to every component wired in parallel, is both predictable and expected of a circuit wired in parallel.
Regarding claim 5, Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang teaches the system of claim 1.
Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang as modified does not teach the system further comprising a jam sensor detecting a jam in one of the plurality of blades and a blade rotation control device for changing the blade rotation direction to clear the jam.
Yang further teaches a jam sensor (Yang; Fig. 1; 5) detecting a jam in one of the plurality of blades and a blade rotation control device for changing the blade rotation direction to clear the jam (Yang; P. 0087, 0096 and 0103). Such a sensor helps to prevent damage to the motor, tool and vehicle (Yang; P. 0103).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the system taught by Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang to further include a jam sensor like the sensor taught by Yang as such a sensor helps to prevent damage to the motor, tool and vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang teaches the system of claim 1.
Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang does not teach wherein the plurality of blade units are wired in parallel. However, parallel wiring is well-known in the electrical art to electrically connect several components together to allow for independent electrical control of each connected component and to provide the same voltage to every component wired in parallel. Further it is one of two ways in which to wire a circuit, the other being in series. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to wire the plurality of blade units in parallel as the result of doing so, to provide independent electrical control of each connected component and to provide the same voltage to every component wired in parallel, is both predictable and expected of a circuit wired in parallel.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Good (US 2024/0201706 A1), Seino (WO 2024/142249 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsutsumi et al. (US 2019/0241259 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang teaches the system of claim 1.
Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang does not teach wherein the motor in each of the plurality of blade units is a magnetic motor.
Tsutsumi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (Tsutsumi; Fig. 1; 1) comprising blade units (Tsutsumi; Figs. 1-2; 2 and 3) motors (Tsutsumi; Figs. 1-2; 3) for driving rotational blades (Tsutsumi; Fig. 1; 2), wherein the motor in each of the plurality of blade units is a magnetic motor (Tsutsumi; Fig. 2; 3; P. 0022). While the blade units taught by Tsutsumi are for flight instead of cutting the blades of Tsutsumi would still be capable of cutting. Such a motor provides improved performance (Tsutsumi; P. 0004 and 0011).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the system taught by Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang such that the motor of the blade unit was a magnetic motor like the motor taught by Tsutsumi as such a motor provides improved performance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Good (US 2024/0201706 A1), Seino (WO 2024/142249 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN 219046798 U).
Regarding claim 7, Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of blade units (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above) include a plurality of clipping elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above) such that blade units are connected in a horizontal column by connection of the clipping elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above).
Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang does not teach that the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements.
Zheng teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Zheng; Figs. 1-7) comprising a plurality of blade units (Zheng; Figs. 1-2; 6, 61 and 62) and a plurality of clipping elements (Zheng; Fig. 2; 63), wherein the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements (Zheng; Fig. 1; 6). This allows the system to trim a tree vertically and allows for the blade units to be orientated in different orientations depending on the growth direction of a tree (Zheng; P. 0040 and 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the system taught by Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang such that the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements like the blade units taught by Zheng as doing so allows the system to trim a tree vertically and allows for the blade units to be oriented in different orientations depending on the growth direction of a tree.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Good (US 2024/0201706 A1), Seino (WO 2024/142249 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Volpi (US 2024/0317396 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang teaches the system of claim 1.
Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang does not teach the system further comprising a plurality of operational sensors disposed around the unmanned aerial vehicle and the blade units, a control module receiving sensor data from the plurality of operational sensors and a transmission device transmitting the sensor data to a remote control station.
Volpi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 10) comprising a plurality of operational sensors (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 50 and 460) disposed around the unmanned aerial vehicle and the blade units (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 370), a control module receiving sensor data from the plurality of operational sensors (Volpi; P. 0058, 0060, 0081, 0083 and 0086), a transmission device (Volpi; Fig. 12; 560) transmitting the sensor data to a remote control station and operating the device in response to feedback from the operational sensors (Volpi; P. 0058, 0060, 0081, 0083, 0086 and 0096). This allows the device to be controlled by a user in real time (Volpi; P. 0074,0081 and 0094).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify unmanned aerial vehicle taught by Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang to include a plurality of operational sensor that allow operating the device in response to feedback from the operational sensors, a control module, and a transmission device like those taught by Volpi as such components allows the device to be controlled by a user in real time.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Andou et al. (US 2019/0291599 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A).
Regarding claim 9, Guzman teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Guzman; Figs. 3-4) comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (Guzman; Fig. 4) having a battery-based engine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above; P. 0024; 11 “drive motors”) powering at least one rotational blade (Guzman; Fig. 3; 342) for achieving flight;
a plurality of electrically-powered blade units (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above), each unit having a blade (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above) powered by a motor (Guzman; Fig. 3; 310);
wherein each of the electrical motors (Guzman; Fig. 3; 310) of the blade units for causing circular rotation of the corresponding blade such that unmanned aerial vehicle is operative to trim the vegetation using the plurality of blade units powered by the engine (Guzman; P. 0030).
Guzman does not teach a power distributer connected to the engine; the plurality of blade units receiving power from the battery-based engine as distributed through the power distributer, wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades, and a plurality of electrical connectors for transferring the electrical power from the power distributer to each of the electrical motors of the blade units.
Andou teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (Figs. 1-7) featuring a power distributor (Andou; Figs. 1-2 and 6-7; 21 and 22) for distributing electrical energy of the electrical connectors (Andou; P. 0021) to power the motors (Andou; Figs. 1-4 and 6-7; 33). While the motors taught by Andou drive the rotational blades of Andou for flight this is still applicable to the blades of the blade units as the only difference between the systems is what is being driven. Such a transformer allows for stored of energy when not in use (Andou; P. 0020-0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify unmanned aerial vehicle taught by Guzman such that the vehicle included a power distributor and connectors to supply power to the motors to drive blades as such an arrangement allows the system to store energy when not in use.
Yang teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Yang; Figs. 1-5) comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle (Yang; 1; P. 0054) comprising a plurality of blade units (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8) each comprising a blade (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8), wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8) in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades (Yang; P. 0087, 0096 and 0099), Yang teaches that the motors for the blades are controlled separately and that the blades can be rotated in different rotational directions. This allows the motors to rotate the blades in different directions to clear a jam (Yang; P. 0103).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the plurality of blade units taught by Guzman such that wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades like the blade unit taught by Yang as it would allow the motors to rotate the blades in different directions to clear a jam.
Regarding claim 12, Guzman in view of Good, Seino and Yang teaches the system of claim 9.
Guzman in view of Andou and Yang as modified does not teach the system further comprising a jam sensor detecting a jam in one of the plurality of blades and a blade rotation control device for changing the blade rotation direction to clear the jam.
Yang further teaches a jam sensor (Yang; Fig. 1; 5) detecting a jam in one of the plurality of blades and a blade rotation control device for changing the blade rotation direction to clear the jam (Yang; P. 0087, 0096 and 0103). Such a sensor helps to prevent damage to the motor, tool and vehicle (Yang; P. 0103).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the system taught by Guzman in view of Andou and Yang to further include a jam sensor like the sensor taught by Yang as such a sensor helps to prevent damage to the motor, tool and vehicle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Andou (US 2019/0291599 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tsutsumi (US 2019/0241259 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Guzman in view of Andou and Yang teaches the system of claim 9.
Guzman in view of Andou and Yang does not teach wherein the motor in each of the plurality of blade units is a magnetic motor.
Tsutsumi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (Tsutsumi; Fig. 1; 1) comprising blade units (Tsutsumi; Figs. 1-2; 2 and 3) motors (Tsutsumi; Figs. 1-2; 3) for driving rotational blades (Tsutsumi; Fig. 1; 2), wherein the motor in each of the plurality of blade units is a magnetic motor (Tsutsumi; Fig. 2; 3; P. 0022). While the blade units taught by Tsutsumi are for flight instead of cutting the blades of Tsutsumi would still be capable of cutting. Such a motor provides improved performance (Tsutsumi; P. 0004 and 0011).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the system taught by Guzman in view of Andou and Yang such that the motor of the blade unit was a magnetic motor like the motor taught by Tsutsumi as such a motor provides improved performance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Andou (US 2019/0291599 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zheng (CN 219046798 U).
Regarding claim 14, Guzman in view of Andou and Yang teaches the system of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of blade units (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above) include a plurality of clipping elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above) such that blade units are connected in a horizontal column by connection of the clipping elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above).
Guzman in view of Andou and Yang does not teach that the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements.
Zheng teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Zheng; Figs. 1-7) comprising a plurality of blade units (Zheng; Figs. 1-2; 6, 61 and 62) and a plurality of clipping elements (Zheng; Fig. 2; 63), wherein the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements (Zheng; Fig. 1; 6). This allows the system to trim a tree vertically and allows for the blade units to be orientated in different orientations depending on the growth direction of a tree (Zheng; P. 0040 and 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the system taught by Guzman in view of Andou and Yang such that the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements like the blade units taught by Zheng as doing so allows the system to trim a tree vertically and allows for the blade units to be oriented in different orientations depending on the growth direction of a tree.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Andou (US 2019/0291599 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Volpi (US 2024/0317396 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Guzman in view of Andou and Yang teaches the system of claim 9.
Guzman in view of Andou and Yang does not teach the system further comprising a plurality of operational sensors disposed around the unmanned aerial vehicle and the blade units, a control module receiving sensor data from the plurality of operational sensors and a transmission device transmitting the sensor data to a remote control station.
Volpi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 10) comprising a plurality of operational sensors (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 50 and 460) disposed around the unmanned aerial vehicle and the blade units (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 370), a control module receiving sensor data from the plurality of operational sensors (Volpi; P. 0058, 0060, 0081, 0083 and 0086), a transmission device (Volpi; Fig. 12; 560) transmitting the sensor data to a remote control station and operating the device in response to feedback from the operational sensors (Volpi; P. 0058, 0060, 0081, 0083, 0086 and 0096). This allows the device to be controlled by a user in real time (Volpi; P. 0074,0081 and 0094).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify unmanned aerial vehicle taught by Guzman in view of Andou and Yang to include a plurality of operational sensor that allow operating the device in response to feedback from the operational sensors, a control module, and a transmission device like those taught by Volpi as such components allows the device to be controlled by a user in real time.
Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Good (US 2024/0201706 A1), Seino (WO 2024/142249 A1), Volpi (US 2024/0317396 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A).
Regarding claim 16, Guzman teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Guzman; Figs. 3-4) comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (Guzman; Fig. 4) having an engine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above; P. 0024; 11 “drive motors”) powering at least one rotational blade (Guzman; Fig. 3; 342) for achieving flight; a plurality of electrically-powered blade units (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above), each unit having a blade (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above) powered by a motor (Guzman; Fig. 3; 310); and
wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is operative to trim the vegetation using the plurality of blade units powered by the motor (Guzman; P. 0030).
Guzman does not teach wherein the blades receiving power from an engine, wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise rotation and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades, a plurality of electrical connectors for transferring the electrical power from the power distributer to each of the electrical motors of the blade units for causing circular rotation of the corresponding blade, a plurality of operational sensors disposed around the unmanned aerial vehicle and the blade units, a control module receiving sensor data from the plurality of operational sensors, a transmission device transmitting the sensor data to a remote control station, and wherein that unmanned aerial vehicle is operative to trim the vegetation using the plurality of blade units powered by the engine and operating in response to feedback from the operational sensors.
Good teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Good; Figs. 1-5) comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle (Good; Figs. 1-5; 10) having a petrochemical-based engine (Good; P. 0031) powering at least one rotational blade (Good; Figs. 2-4; 16) for achieving flight (Good; P. 0011 and 0027), and a plurality of electrical connectors for transferring the electrical power generated by the transformer to each of the electrical motors of the blade units for causing circular rotation of the corresponding blade such that unmanned aerial vehicle is operative to trim the vegetation using the plurality of blade units powered by the engine (Good; P. 0031). As best understood from the instant disclosure the electrical connectors are electrical connections provided between the motor or engine and the device being powered, as such, Good teaches the engine electrically powering the blade which would require electrical connectors and a transformer. This allows the system to be used for a longer duration without needing to recharge or replace the batteries (Good; P. 0011 and 0031).
Seino teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (Seino; Fig. 2; 10) featuring an internal combustion engine (Seino; Fig. 1A; 7a) connected to a transformer (Seino; Figs. 1-2 and 6-7; 8) for generating electrical power to supply power through electrical connectors to the motors (Seino; Fig. 1A; 14). While the motors taught by Seino drive the rotational blades of Seino (Seino; Fig. 1A; 2) for flight this is still applicable to the blades of the blade units taught by Gusman as the only difference between the systems is what is being driven. Such a transformer allows for the conversion of mechanical energy into electrical energy (Seino, P. 0015).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify unmanned aerial vehicle taught by Guzman such that the vehicle included a petrochemical-based engine like the engine taught by Good and to include a transformer and connectors to supply power to the blades like those taught by Seino as such an arrangement allows the system to be used for a longer duration without needing to recharge or replace the batteries and allows for the engine to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy to power electrical systems.
Volpi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 10) comprising a plurality of operational sensors (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 50 and 460) disposed around the unmanned aerial vehicle and the blade units (Volpi; Figs. 1-31; 370), a control module receiving sensor data from the plurality of operational sensors (Volpi; P. 0058, 0060, 0081, 0083 and 0086), a transmission device (Volpi; Fig. 12; 560) transmitting the sensor data to a remote control station and operating the device in response to feedback from the operational sensors (Volpi; P. 0058, 0060, 0081, 0083, 0086 and 0096). This allows the device to be controlled by a user in real time (Volpi; P. 0074,0081 and 0094).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify unmanned aerial vehicle taught by Guzman to include a plurality of operational sensor that allow operating the device in response to feedback from the operational sensors, a control module, and a transmission device like those taught by Volpi as such components allows the device to be controlled by a user in real time.
Yang teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Yang; Figs. 1-5) comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle (Yang; 1; P. 0054) comprising a plurality of blade units (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8) each comprising a blade (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8), wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade (Yang; Figs. 1-3; 8) in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades (Yang; P. 0087, 0096 and 0099), Yang teaches that the motors for the blades are controlled separately and that the blades can be rotated in different rotational directions. This allows the motors to rotate the blades in different directions to clear a jam (Yang; P. 0103).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the plurality of blade units taught by Guzman such that wherein each of the plurality of blade units rotates its blade in at least one of a clockwise rotation and a counter-clockwise and each of the plurality of blade rotations is independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades rotation independent of a blade rotation direction of the other plurality of blades like the blade unit taught by Yang as it would allow the motors to rotate the blades in different directions to clear a jam.
Regarding claim 17, Guzman in view of Good, Seino, Volpi and Yang teaches the system of claim 6.
Guzman in view of Good, Seino, Volpi and Yang does not teach wherein the plurality of blade units are wired in parallel. However, parallel wiring is well-known in the electrical art to electrically connect several components together to allow for independent electrical control of each connected component and to provide the same voltage to every component wired in parallel. Further it is one of two ways in which to wire a circuit, the other being in series. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to wire the plurality of blade units in parallel as the result of doing so, to provide independent electrical control of each connected component and to provide the same voltage to every component wired in parallel, is both predictable and expected of a circuit wired in parallel.
Regarding claim 19, Guzman in view of Good, Seino, Volpi and Yang teaches the system of claim 16.
Guzman in view of Good, Seino, Volpi and Yang as modified does not teach the system further comprising a jam sensor detecting a jam in one of the plurality of blades and a blade rotation control device for changing the blade rotation direction to clear the jam.
Yang further teaches a jam sensor (Yang; Fig. 1; 5) detecting a jam in one of the plurality of blades and a blade rotation control device for changing the blade rotation direction to clear the jam (Yang; P. 0087, 0096 and 0103). Such a sensor helps to prevent damage to the motor, tool and vehicle (Yang; P. 0103).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the system taught by Guzman in view of Good, Seino, Volpi and Yang to further include a jam sensor like the sensor taught by Yang as such a sensor helps to prevent damage to the motor, tool and vehicle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2020/0367441 A1) in view of Good (US 2024/0201706 A1), Seino (WO 2024/142249 A1), Volpi (US 2024/0317396 A1) and Yang (CN 108556068 A) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zheng (CN 219046798 U).
Regarding claim 20, Guzman in view of Good, Seino, Volpi and Yang teaches the system of claim 16, wherein each of the plurality of blade units (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above) include a plurality of clipping elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above) such that blade units are connected in a horizontal column by connection of the clipping elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Guzman) above).
Guzman in view of Good, Seino, Volpi and Yang does not teach that the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements.
Zheng teaches an aerial vegetation trimming system (Zheng; Figs. 1-7) comprising a plurality of blade units (Zheng; Figs. 1-2; 6, 61 and 62) and a plurality of clipping elements (Zheng; Fig. 2; 63), wherein the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements (Zheng; Fig. 1; 6). This allows the system to trim a tree vertically and allows for the blade units to be orientated in different orientations depending on the growth direction of a tree (Zheng; P. 0040 and 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the system taught by Guzman in view of Good, Seino, Volpi and Yang such that the blade units are connected in a vertical column by connection of the clipping elements like the blade units taught by Zheng as doing so allows the system to trim a tree vertically and allows for the blade units to be oriented in different orientations depending on the growth direction of a tree.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights