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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 06/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
The applicant' s claim for benefit of Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/335,439 filed on 04/27/2022 has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements received on 06/10/2025, 11/14/2025, and 04/29/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
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.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dji.com (Dji.com: “SPARK user manual”, User Manual V1.6, 1 October 2017, pages 1-56; hereinafter SPARK) in view of Zang (US 9567078 B2; hereinafter Zang).
Regarding claim 1, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
An apparatus for an autonomous drone comprising (see SPARK at least pg. 18, step 4 “The aircraft will automatically avoid obstacles in its flight path.”): . . .
receiving an indication of a selection of a flight button (see SPARK at least pg. 23, PalmLaunch step 2 “. . . tap the Intelligent Flight Battery power button twice. The front LEDs should blink yellow slowly.”);
capturing an image using an image capturing device of the autonomous drone (see SPARK at least pg. 7, Aircraft Diagram- Gimbal and Camera 5; pg. 23, first image- horizontal FaceAware scanning with gimbal and camera subsystem performed);
processing the image to identify a user (see SPARK at least pg. 23, PalmLaunch step 3 “FaceAware will start to work automatically. When FaceAware activates successfully, the aircraft beeps twice and the front LEDs become solid green. If the front LEDs blink red twice, then FaceAware has failed. Please repeat step 2.”; pg. 23, first image- drone scans user);
taking off from a hand (see SPARK at least PalmLaunch step 4 “Release the aircraft and it will hover in place.”; pg. 23, second image- drone is taking off from a hand);
determining a distance of the autonomous drone from the user (see SPARK at least pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”); and
navigating the autonomous drone relative to the user (see SPARK at least pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”).
While SPARK discloses an autonomous drone with a flight controller that performs the described operations (see SPARK at least pg. 6, paragraph 4 “The next-generation flight controller . . .”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the processor to perform the described operations.
Zang teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . at least one processor (see Zang at least pg. 47, col. 49, lines 20-48 “. . . the processing unit 1604 can be configured to execute instructions causing one or more processors of the processing unit 1604 to perform the tracking functionalities discussed herein.”); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the processor to perform operations comprising (see Zang at least pg. 47, col. 49, lines 20-48 “The memory units of the non-transitory computer readable medium 1606 can store logic, code and/or program instructions executable by the processing unit 1604 to perform any suitable embodiment of the methods described herein. For example, the processing unit 1604 can be configured to execute instructions causing one or more processors of the processing unit 1604 to perform the tracking functionalities discussed herein.”): . . .
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the flight controller that performs the described operations of SPARK with the processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to perform operations as taught by Zang to have at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the processor to perform the described operations. Doing so would provide a hardware implementation for the flight controller and enable the described functionality.
Regarding claim 2, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While SPARK discloses determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user and using image capturing devices to navigate (see SPARK at least pg. 11, paragraph 2 “The main components of the Vision System are located on the underside of the aircraft body. This includes a camera 2 . . . The Vision System uses . . . image data to help the aircraft maintain its current position, enabling precision hovering indoors or in environments where GPS signal is not available.”; pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user is based on a number of pixels of an image sensor of the image capturing device the user occupies and an estimated size of the user.
Zang teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user is based on a number of pixels of an image sensor of the image capturing device the user occupies and an estimated size of the user (see Zang at least pg. 30, col. 15, lines 7-23 “. . . a deviation from the expected target size may require translational movement of the movable object along a suitable axis . . . For example, if the current or actual target size is smaller than the expected target size, the movable object may need to be moved closer to the target . . . On the other hand, if the current or actual target size is larger than the expected target size, the movable object may need to be moved farther away from the target . . .”; pg. 39, col. 34, lines 28-49 “. . . the target may be tracked so as to maintain an expected position and/or size within one or more images captured by the imaging device . . . The expected size of the tracked target may be around a certain number of pixels (e.g., the initial target size).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user and using image capturing devices to navigate of SPARK with the determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user being based on a number of pixels of an image sensor of the image capturing device the user occupies and an estimated size of the user as taught by Zang to determine the distance of the autonomous drone from the user based on a number of pixels of an image sensor of the image capturing device the user occupies and an estimated size of the user. Doing so would provide a means for determining the distance using on-board sensing systems.
Regarding claim 3, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the image capturing device is a first image capturing device, the image is a first image, and the operations further comprise (see SPARK at least pg. 7, Aircraft Diagram- Gimbal and Camera 5 separate from Vision System 13; pg. 23, first image- horizontal scanning with gimbal and camera subsystem performed):
capturing a second image using a second image capturing device (see SPARK at least pg. 11, paragraph 2 “The main components of the Vision System are located on the underside of the aircraft body. This includes a camera 2 . . . The Vision System uses . . . image data to help the aircraft maintain its current position, enabling precision hovering indoors or in environments where GPS signal is not available.”; pg. 7, Aircraft Diagram- Gimbal and Camera 5 separate from Vision System 13; pg. 11, second image- camera 2 is located on underside of body as part of Vision System); and
identifying the second image to identify a hand of the user (see SPARK at least pg. 11, paragraph 2 “The main components of the Vision System are located on the underside of the aircraft body . . . The Vision System uses . . . image data to help the aircraft maintain its current position, enabling precision hovering indoors or in environments where GPS signal is not available.”; pg. 11, third image- vision system identifies surroundings underneath the body; pg. 25, third image- the Vision System is used to identify a hand upon which to land during PalmLand operations).
Regarding claim 4, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 3 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the first image capturing device is mounted horizontally relative to an axis of propellers of the autonomous drone and the second image capturing device is mounted vertically relative to the axis of the propellers and is directed downward (see SPARK at least pg. 7, Aircraft Diagram- Gimbal and Camera 5 mounted horizontally, Vision System 13 mounted vertically and directed downward).
Regarding claim 5, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the navigating further comprises:
navigating the autonomous drone relative to the user to a waypoint (see SPARK at least pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground [(i.e., waypoint navigated relative to user)].”).
Regarding claim 6, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 5 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the operations further comprise:
capturing an additional image at the waypoint (see SPARK at least pg. 42, Taking Selfies step 1 “Make a frame with your hands within 23 ft (7 m) of the aircraft while facing toward the camera and it will begin taking a selfie.”).
Regarding claim 7, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 5 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the waypoint based on a flight plan indicated by a control on a surface of the autonomous drone (see SPARK at least pg. 23, PalmLaunch step 2 “. . . tap the Intelligent Flight Battery power button twice.”; pg. 23, PalmLaunch step 3 “FaceAware will start to work automatically.”; pg. 23, PalmLaunch step 4 “Release the aircraft and it will hover in place.”; pg. 7, Aircraft diagram- Power button 8 is on a surface of the drone; Examiner notes that power button (i.e., control on a surface of the autonomous drone) is used to activate FaceAware gesture tracking (i.e., flight plan indicated, waypoint determination based on flight plan)).
Regarding claim 8, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 5 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the waypoint is away from the hand of the user and above a head of the user (see SPARK at least pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing [(i.e., waypoint away from hand)], 2.3 m above ground [(i.e., waypoint above head of user)].”; pg. 24, third image- drone located away from hand and above head of user; pg. 25, first and second images- drone located away from hand and above head of user).
Regarding claim 9, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . further comprising:
a height detector coupled to the at least one processor, the height detector comprising at least one sensor, wherein the operations further comprise (see SPARK at least pg. 11, paragraph 2 “The main components of the Vision System are located on the underside of the aircraft body. This includes a camera 2 and a 3D infrared module 3. The Vision System uses 3D infrared module and image data to help the aircraft maintain its current position, enabling precision hovering indoors or in environments where GPS signal is not available.”):
determining a height above a ground based on sensor data from the at least one sensor, and wherein the navigating is further based on the height above the ground (see SPARK at least pg. 11, paragraph 5 “Using the Vision System, the aircraft can hover precisely, even without GPS.”; pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”; pg. 11, fourth image- drone uses undercarriage-mounted vision system to hover at height).
Regarding claim 10, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the image is a first image, and wherein the operations further comprise (see SPARK at least pg. 11, paragraph 2 “The main components of the Vision System are located on the underside of the aircraft body . . . The Vision System uses . . . image data to help the aircraft maintain its current position, enabling precision hovering indoors or in environments where GPS signal is not available.”):
capturing a second image using the image capturing device (see SPARK at least pg. 24, Taking Selfies step 1- “Make a frame with your hands within 23 ft (7 m) of the aircraft while facing toward the camera and it will begin taking a selfie.”; examiner notes that this operation occurs after the drone has launched from the user’s hand, when FaceAware would have already used the camera to capture image data of the user); and . . .
While SPARK discloses capturing multiple images and tracking a user (see SPARK at least pg. 19, ActiveTrack, Trace “The aircraft tracks the subject at a constant distance.”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose determining whether the user moved based on comparing the first image with the second image.
Zang teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . determining whether the user moved based on comparing the first image with the second image (see Zang at least pg. 40, col. 35, lines 8-23 “Once a target is identified, expected target information (as part of the target information) can be used to detect a deviation from expected characteristics of the target such as expected position and/or size. The deviation may be detected by comparing the target's characteristics (e.g., positions and/or sizes) within a series of images captured by the movable objects to determine whether the characteristics change across the images.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the capturing multiple images and tracking a user of SPARK with the determining whether the user moved based on comparing the first image with the second image as taught by Zang to determine whether the user moved based on comparing the first image with the second image. Doing so would provide a means for tracking the user to perform the described functions using the sensing capabilities of the drone.
Regarding claim 12, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While SPARK discloses the navigating being based on identifying the user in an image captured by the image capturing device (see SPARK at least pg. 23, PalmLaunch step 3 “FaceAware will start to work automatically. When FaceAware activates successfully, the aircraft beeps twice and the front LEDs become solid green. If the front LEDs blink red twice, then FaceAware has failed. Please repeat step 2.”; pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”; pg. 23, first image- drone scans user), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the navigating being based on identifying the user in subsequent images captured by the image capturing device.
Zang teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the navigating is based on identifying the user in subsequent images captured by the image capturing device (see Zang at least pg. 29, col. 14, lines 7-23 “. . . the target information can be used to identify, by the movable object, the target 116 to be tracked . . . target identification includes comparing two or more images to determine, extract, and/or match features contained therein.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the navigating being based on identifying the user in an image captured by the image capturing device of SPARK with the navigating being based on identifying the user in subsequent images captured by the image capturing device as taught by Zang to navigate based on identifying the user in subsequent images captured by the image capturing device. Doing so would provide a means for tracking the target using the on-board sensors.
Regarding claim 13, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the navigating is based on orienting the autonomous drone in space relative to the user (see SPARK at least pg. 19, ActiveTrack, Profile “The aircraft tracks the subject at constant angle and distance from the side.”; pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”).
Regarding claim 14, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the image is a first image and wherein the navigating further comprises:
navigating to a first waypoint based on a first position of the user determined from the first image (see SPARK at least pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”);
capturing a second image (see SPARK at least pg. 23, Adjusting Position step 1 “Move your palm up or down slowly to control the aircraft’s altitude while maintaining a constant distance your palm and the aircraft.”; pg. 23, fourth image- drone shown using gimbal and camera system to maintain distance from palm); and
navigating to a second waypoint based on a second position of the user determined from the second image (see SPARK at least pg. 23, Adjusting Position step 1 “Move your palm up or down slowly to control the aircraft’s altitude while maintaining a constant distance your palm and the aircraft.”; pg. 23, fourth image- drone shown using gimbal and camera system to maintain distance from palm).
Regarding claim 15, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the navigating further comprises:
navigating in an initial flying state (see SPARK at least pg. 9, paragraph 1 “The aircraft utilizes the GPS and Vision System to locate itself, automatically stabilize, and navigate between obstacles. Intelligent Flight Modes such as QuickShot, TapFly, and ActiveTrack are enabled in this mode.”);
stabilizing the autonomous drone (see SPARK at least pg. 9, paragraph 1 “The aircraft utilizes the GPS and Vision System to locate itself, automatically stabilize, and navigate between obstacles. Intelligent Flight Modes such as QuickShot, TapFly, and ActiveTrack are enabled in this mode.”); and
navigating to a first waypoint (see SPARK at least pg. 9, paragraph 1 “P Mode (Positioning): . . . The aircraft utilizes the GPS and Vision System to locate itself, automatically stabilize, and navigate between obstacles. Intelligent Flight Modes such as QuickShot, TapFly, and ActiveTrack are enabled in this mode. Intelligent Flight Modes . . . are enabled in this mode.”; pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground [(i.e., waypoint navigated relative to user; Follow mode is an intelligent flight mode)].”).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are analogous to the limitations of claim 1 except that claim 16 is directed toward a method instead of an apparatus for an autonomous drone and does not recite processor or memory. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 above is applied to claim 16. Additionally, SPARK discloses a method (see SPARK at least pg. 22-25, Gesture Mode- steps).
Regarding claim 17, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 16 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, the limitations of claim 17 are analogous to the limitations of claim 2 except that claim 17 is directed toward a method instead of an apparatus for an autonomous drone. Thus, the rejection of claim 2 above is applied to claim 117. Furthermore, SPARK discloses a method (see SPARK at least pg. 22-25, Gesture Mode- steps).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are analogous to the limitations of claim 1 except that claim 18 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium instead of an apparatus for an autonomous drone and claim 1 does not recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 above is applied to claim 18.
Furthermore, while SPARK discloses a flight controller that performs the described operations (see SPARK at least pg. 6, paragraph 4 “The next-generation flight controller . . .”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose a non-transitory storage medium. Zang teaches a non-transitory storage medium (see Zang at least pg. 47, col. 49, lines 20-48 “The memory units of the non-transitory computer readable medium 1606 can store logic, code and/or program instructions executable by the processing unit 1604 to perform any suitable embodiment of the methods described herein. For example, the processing unit 1604 can be configured to execute instructions causing one or more processors of the processing unit 1604 to perform the tracking functionalities discussed herein.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the flight controller that performs the described operations of SPARK with the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus for an autonomous drone, cause the at least one processor to perform the described operations as taught by Zang to have a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus for an autonomous drone, cause the at least one processor to perform the described operations. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as supplied above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 18 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the user is a person or a face (see SPARK at least pg. 23, PalmLaunch step 3 “FaceAware will start to work automatically. When FaceAware activates successfully, the aircraft beeps twice and the front LEDs become solid green. If the front LEDs blink red twice, then FaceAware has failed. Please repeat step 2.”; pg. 23, first image- drone scans user), and . . .
While SPARK discloses the user being a person or a face, determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user, and using image capturing devices to navigate (see SPARK at least pg. 11, paragraph 2 “The main components of the Vision System are located on the underside of the aircraft body. This includes a camera 2 . . . The Vision System uses . . . image data to help the aircraft maintain its current position, enabling precision hovering indoors or in environments where GPS signal is not available.”; pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user is based on a number of pixels of an image sensor of the image capturing device the user occupies and an estimated size of the user.
Zang teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user is based on a number of pixels of an image sensor of the image capturing device the user occupies and an estimated size of the user (see Zang at least pg. 30, col. 15, lines 7-23 “. . . a deviation from the expected target size may require translational movement of the movable object along a suitable axis . . . For example, if the current or actual target size is smaller than the expected target size, the movable object may need to be moved closer to the target . . . On the other hand, if the current or actual target size is larger than the expected target size, the movable object may need to be moved farther away from the target . . .”; pg. 39, col. 34, lines 28-49 “. . . the target may be tracked so as to maintain an expected position and/or size within one or more images captured by the imaging device . . . The expected size of the tracked target may be around a certain number of pixels (e.g., the initial target size).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user and using image capturing devices to navigate of SPARK with the determining the distance of the autonomous drone from the user being based on a number of pixels of an image sensor of the image capturing device the user occupies and an estimated size of the user as taught by Zang to determine the distance of the autonomous drone from the user based on a number of pixels of an image sensor of the image capturing device the user occupies and an estimated size of the user. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as above with regard to claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 18 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, the limitations of claim 20 are analogous to the limitations of claim 3 except that claim 20 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium instead of an apparatus for an autonomous drone and claim 3 does not recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, the rejection of claim 3 above is applied to claim 20.
Furthermore, while SPARK discloses a flight controller that performs the described operations (see SPARK at least pg. 6, paragraph 4 “The next-generation flight controller . . .”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose a non-transitory storage medium. Zang teaches a non-transitory storage medium (see Zang at least pg. 47, col. 49, lines 20-48 “The memory units of the non-transitory computer readable medium 1606 can store logic, code and/or program instructions executable by the processing unit 1604 to perform any suitable embodiment of the methods described herein. For example, the processing unit 1604 can be configured to execute instructions causing one or more processors of the processing unit 1604 to perform the tracking functionalities discussed herein.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the flight controller that performs the described operations of SPARK with the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus for an autonomous drone, cause the at least one processor to perform the described operations as taught by Zang to have a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus for an autonomous drone, cause the at least one processor to perform the described operations. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as supplied above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SPARK in view of Zang and further in view of Matuszeski et al. (US 20180321676 A1; hereinafter Matuszeski).
Regarding claim 11, SPARK and Zang disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, SPARK discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the operations further comprise:
after the taking off, hovering at a constant location relative to the user (see SPARK at least pg. 24, Follow step 2 “The aircraft will ascend and fly backward, then hover in place 3 m from where you’re standing, 2.3 m above ground.”); . . .
While SPARK discloses after taking off, hovering at a constant location relative to the user, it does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a windspeed based on an electrical power applied to electrical motors that operate propellers of the autonomous drone and in response to determining the windspeed is above a threshold value, landing the autonomous drone.
Matuszeski teaches the subject matter underlined below:
determining a windspeed based on an electrical power applied to electrical motors that operate propellers of the autonomous drone (see Matuszeski at least [0070] “. . . the UAV 100 may determine a wind speed and/or direction by launching vertically, hovering, and calculating a wind speed and/or direction based on the movement of the UAV 100 relative to the ground 1203 and/or launch location 1202 while hovering. The UAV 100 may use this calculated wind speed and/or direction to determine an optimized flight path 1204 and/or determine a time to land.”; [0071] “A processor of the UAV 100 may continuously calculate the energy required to return to and land 1212 on the launch location 1202. The processor may also continuously calculate the energy required to perform a land now 1214 operation at its current location. If the processor determines that the UAV 100 has just enough battery to return and land 1212, the processor may cause the UAV to abort the present mission and return and land 1212 at its launch location 1202. In one embodiment, the need to return and land 1212 may occur if there are high winds and the UAV is using more energy than anticipated to fly through its flight path 1204.”); and
in response to determining the windspeed is above a threshold value, landing the autonomous drone (see Matuszeski at least [0070] “. . . the UAV 100 may determine a wind speed and/or direction by launching vertically, hovering, and calculating a wind speed and/or direction based on the movement of the UAV 100 relative to the ground 1203 and/or launch location 1202 while hovering. The UAV 100 may use this calculated wind speed and/or direction to determine an optimized flight path 1204 and/or determine a time to land.”; [0071] “A processor of the UAV 100 may continuously calculate the energy required to return to and land 1212 on the launch location 1202. The processor may also continuously calculate the energy required to perform a land now 1214 operation at its current location. If the processor determines that the UAV 100 has just enough battery to return and land 1212, the processor may cause the UAV to abort the present mission and return and land 1212 at its launch location 1202. In one embodiment, the need to return and land 1212 may occur if there are high winds and the UAV is using more energy than anticipated to fly through its flight path 1204.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the hovering at a constant location of SPARK with the determining a windspeed based on an electrical power applied to electrical motors that operate propellers of the autonomous drone and in response to determining the windspeed is above a threshold value, landing the autonomous drone as taught by Matuszeski to determine a windspeed based on an electrical power applied to electrical motors that operate propellers of the autonomous drone and in response to determining the windspeed is above a threshold value, land the autonomous drone. Doing so would ensure the drone has enough battery charge to be able to safely land in high winds, as recognized by Matuszeski (see Matuszeski at least [0070] “. . . the UAV 100 may determine a wind speed and/or direction by launching vertically, hovering, and calculating a wind speed and/or direction based on the movement of the UAV 100 relative to the ground 1203 and/or launch location 1202 while hovering. The UAV 100 may use this calculated wind speed and/or direction to determine an optimized flight path 1204 and/or determine a time to land.”; [0071] “A processor of the UAV 100 may continuously calculate the energy required to return to and land 1212 on the launch location 1202. The processor may also continuously calculate the energy required to perform a land now 1214 operation at its current location. If the processor determines that the UAV 100 has just enough battery to return and land 1212, the processor may cause the UAV to abort the present mission and return and land 1212 at its launch location 1202. In one embodiment, the need to return and land 1212 may occur if there are high winds and the UAV is using more energy than anticipated to fly through its flight path 1204.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jie et al. (CN 109074168 A) discloses an autonomous drone tracking a user.
Stroppiana et al. (US 20230033760 A1) discloses an autonomous drone that uses a camera and navigates relative to a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABITHA KRESS whose telephone number is (703)756-1763. The examiner can normally be reached MTWR 06:30-16:30 CST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/TABITHA KRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
8/11/26
Prosecution Insights