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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “40b” described in paragraph [0071] representing the “holder”.
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. 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
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the claim recites “a movement mechanism configured to move the plurality of holders in a horizontal direction; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the movement mechanism to increase a maximum separation distance between the plurality of holders in response to an amount of swing of the object being greater than or equal to a predetermined value”. No single prior art has been found to anticipate these limitations, nor any combination of prior art references to render these limitations obvious, when viewed in the context of the remaining limitations of the claim and the limitations to which the claim depends. As such, dependent claim 5 would be found allowable if it were moved into independent form incorporating each and every intervening limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. (US 20180044019) in view of Bialkowski et al. (US 20160332851).
In regards to claim 1, Morrison teaches a work device that is capable of suspending an object, the work device comprising: (Figs 1-14.)
a plurality of holders configured to hold the object such that the object is suspended; ([0032] suspension ropes hold assembly suspended from aerial vehicle.)
an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust respective postures of the plurality of holders; ([0036]-[0038] winches adjust relative posture of suspension ropes by shortening or lengthening them.) and
a controller configured or programmed to control operation of at least the adjustment mechanism; ([0035], [0036] attitude controller of aerial vehicle control operation of the winches to selectively wind and unwind the suspension ropes.) wherein
Morrison does not teach:
the controller is configured or programmed to control the adjustment mechanism to change the respective postures of the holders so as to counteract swinging of the object.
However, Bialkowski teaches selectively operating winches to extend or retract suspension ropes of a payload hanging from an aerial vehicle to account for oscillations and swinging of the payload ([0028], [0029], [0031]-[0033]). This adjusts posture of suspension rope.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the aerial vehicle suspended load control system of Morrison, by incorporating the teachings of Bialkowski, such that the winches of Morrison are particularly operated to account for swinging of the object suspended by the suspension ropes, thereby adjusting the posture of each suspension rope as required to appropriately account for swing.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Bialkowski, this allows for maintaining stability of the load and the aerial vehicle ([0029]).
In regards to claim 2, Morrison, as modified by Bialkowski, teaches the work device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the adjustment mechanism so that the holders generate tension on the object. ([0037], [0057], [0068] suspension ropes hold tension, which, at least, when winches retract forces the tension within the ropes to raise the suspended object. The winches hold the suspension ropes and therefore generate tension on the suspended object. [0035], [0036] attitude controller and winch controller perform operations.)
In regards to claim 3, Bialkowski teaches an inertial measurement unit used to determined acceleration, angular velocity, and period of the suspended payload, which form detections of swinging of the payload ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the aerial vehicle suspended load control system of Morrison, as already modified by Bialkowski, by further incorporating the teachings of Bialkowski, such that the suspended object of Morrison includes an inertial measurement unit that determines swinging dynamics of the suspended object, including acceleration, angular velocity, and period.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bialkowski in regard to claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, Morrison, as modified by Bialkowski, teaches the work device according to claim 3.
Morrison also teaches each winch attached to suspension rope may be adjusted individually to account for suspension condition of suspended object. The attitude controller and winch controller perform these operations ([0035]-[0037]).
Bialkowski teaches selectively operating winches to extend or retract suspension ropes of a payload hanging from an aerial vehicle to account for oscillations and swinging of the payload ([0028], [0029], [0031]-[0033]). This adjusts posture of suspension rope. An inertial measurement unit is used to determined acceleration, angular velocity, and period of the suspended payload, which form detections of swinging of the payload ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the aerial vehicle suspended load control system of Morrison, as already modified by Bialkowski, by further incorporating the teachings of Bialkowski, such that the suspension ropes are extended or retracted individually based on the particular swinging characteristics of the suspended object to control oscillations of the suspended characteristic, which includes causing extension and contraction of each suspension rope individually in a direction of change in the swing acceleration of the suspended object.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bialkowski in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 6, Morrison, as modified by Bialkowski, teaches the work device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a position detector configured to detect respective positions of the holders and the object relative to each other. ([0035]-[0038], [0040], [0042] winches extend or retract a known length for each individual suspension rope of the suspension ropes holding suspended object to control the attitude of the suspended object based on pitch and roll sensors through attitude and winch controllers. This determines the effect of extension or retraction of each individual suspension rope on the suspended object to maintain the suspended object in a horizontal position. This at least detects horizontal and non-horizontal positions of the suspended object and the relation to each of the suspension ropes, such that the front-most positioned suspension rope is, for example, actuated causing the positional effect of the suspended object to be effected both in pitch, roll, and position. For example, as the front most suspension rope is contracted, the suspended object is moved forwards towards the winch and pitches upward. This at least determines the relative positions of the objects and suspension rope by independently adjusting each particular suspension rope.)
In regards to claim 7, Morrison, as modified by Bialkowski, teaches the work device according to claim 1.
Morrison also teaches each winch attached to suspension rope may be adjusted individually to account for suspension condition of suspended object. The attitude controller and winch controller perform these operations ([0035]-[0037]).
Bialkowski teaches selectively operating winches to extend or retract suspension ropes of a payload hanging from an aerial vehicle to account for oscillations and swinging of the payload ([0028], [0029], [0031]-[0033]). This adjusts posture of suspension rope. An inertial measurement unit is used to determined acceleration, angular velocity, and period of the suspended payload, which form detections of swinging of the payload and detection of posture of the payload ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the aerial vehicle suspended load control system of Morrison, as already modified by Bialkowski, by further incorporating the teachings of Bialkowski, such that an inertial measurement unit determines the posture of the suspended object at least by determining acceleration, angular velocity, and period, and the suspension ropes are adjusted using the winches of Morrison to extend or retract based on the sensed information from the inertial measurement unit.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bialkowski in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 8, Bialkowski teaches the speed of the payload being lowered is adjusted based upon factors including weight of the payload and further stabilization operations may be performed based in part upon weight ([0143], [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the aerial vehicle suspended load control system of Morrison, as already modified by Bialkowski, by further incorporating the teachings of Bialkowski, such that the speed at which the suspension ropes are extended or retracted is adjusted based at least in part upon the weight of the suspended object, which necessarily includes the case in which the speed is lower as the object weigh less.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bialkowski in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, Morrison, as modified by Bialkowski, teaches a work flight vehicle comprising: (Fig 1.)
the work device according to claim 1; ([0032], [0035], [0036] controllers and system located within helicopter, controllers and system form work device.) and
a flight vehicle; (Fig 1, [0032], [0035], [0036] helicopter.) wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to cause adjustment of the respective postures of the holders with reference to moving speed information of the flight vehicle. ([0036], [0037], [0045] controllers cause suspension ropes to be operated to maintain orientation of suspended object over and based on different flight speeds.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-patent Literature Miyazaki et al. “Long-Reach Aerial Manipulation Employing Wire-Suspended Hand With Swing-Suppression Device” teaches a drone with a suspended payload configured to mitigate swinging of the payload.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights