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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 6/24/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Atsumi (PGPub #2021/0403146).
Regarding claim 1, Atsumi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising: a plurality of rotors (36) to cause the unmanned aerial vehicle to fly (Paragraph 70) with a ground work machine (55) connected to a body (30, and 55 as seen in figures 14, and 20); a controller configured or programmed to control flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Paragraph 14); at least one parachute connected to the body or the ground work machine (Paragraphs 299, and 300); and at least one airbag provided on the body or the ground work machine (Paragraphs 299, and 300).
Regarding claim 14, Atsumi teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one airbag includes a second airbag provided at a lower portion of the body (Paragraphs 299, and 300).
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin et al. (US #9,650,136) in view of Rinaldi et al. (PGPub #2017/0267347), and Stanley (US #2,712,913).
Regarding claim 1, Haskin teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising: a plurality of rotors (230(A)-(F)) to cause the unmanned aerial vehicle to fly (Column 8, lines 22-36) with a ground work machine connected to a body (110, and 112 as seen in figure 1, as currently written there is no specific structure or functionality that is applied to the ground work machine); a controller (204) configured or programmed to control flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Column 5, line 51-Column 6, line 39). But does not teach at least one parachute connected to the body or the ground work machine; and at least one airbag provided on the body or the ground work machine.
However, Rinaldi does teach at least one parachute connected to the body or the ground work machine (1110, and 1205 as seen in figure 12B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the released system have a parachute because Haskin and Rinaldi are both drone package delivery systems. The motivation for having the released system have a parachute is that it helps to minimize the impact when the system hits the ground. But Rinaldi does not teach at least one airbag provided on the body or the ground work machine.
However, Stanley does teach at least one airbag provided on the body or the ground work machine (12, and 16 as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the released system have an airbag because Haskin and Stanley are both systems that airdrop containers from aircraft. The motivation for having the released system have an airbag is that it helps to minimize the impact when the system hits the ground.
Regarding claim 2, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, and Stanley teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to release a connection between the ground work machine and the body during flight (Column 12, lines 26-42 of Haskin).
Regarding claim 3, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, and Stanley teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 2, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to lower a height of the ground work machine from the ground before releasing the connection between the ground work machine and the body during flight (Column 12, lines 26-42, and Column 13, lines 38-43 of Haskin).
Regarding claim 4, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, and Stanley teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 3, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to increase a distance between the ground work machine and the body before releasing the connection between the ground work machine and the body during flight (Column 12, lines 26-42, and Column 13, lines 38-43 of Haskin).
Regarding claim 9, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, and Stanley teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 2, but Haskin not does teach that the at least one parachute includes a first parachute connected to the ground work machine; and the controller is configured or programmed to deploy the first parachute when releasing the connection between the ground work machine and the body during flight. However, Rinaldi does teach that the at least one parachute includes a first parachute connected to the ground work machine (1110, and 1205 as seen in figure 12B); and the controller is configured or programmed to deploy the first parachute when releasing the connection between the ground work machine and the body during flight (Paragraph 58). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the released system have a parachute and have the controller control when the parachute is deployed because Haskin and Rinaldi are both drone package delivery systems. The motivation for having the released system have a parachute and have the controller control when the parachute is deployed is that it helps to reduce the impact when the system hits the ground and helps to ensure that the system is released when the parachute is capable of being effective.
Regarding claim 11, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, and Stanley teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, but does not teach that the at least one airbag includes a first airbag provided on the ground work machine. However, Stanley does teach that the at least one airbag includes a first airbag provided on the ground work machine (15, and 16 as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an airbag on the released system because Haskin and Stanley are both systems that airdrop containers from aircraft. The motivation for having an airbag on the released system is that it helps to minimize the impact when the system hits the ground.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin et al. (US #9,650,136) as modified by Rinaldi et al. (PGPub #2017/0267347), and Stanley (US #2,712,913) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atsumi (PGPub #2021/0403146).
Regarding claim 14, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, and Stanley teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, but does not teach that the at least one airbag includes a second airbag provided at a lower portion of the body. However, Atsumi does teach that the at least one airbag includes a second airbag provided at a lower portion of the body (Paragraphs 299, and 300). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an airbag on a lower portion of the body because Haskin and Atsumi are both UAVs that can be used to transport goods. The motivation for having an airbag on a lower portion of the body is that it helps to protect the aircraft in the event of a crash.
Claims 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin et al. (US #9,650,136) as modified by Rinaldi et al. (PGPub #2017/0267347), and Stanley (US #2,712,913) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (PGPub #2024/0152162).
Regarding claim 15, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, and Stanley teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, but does not teach that the controller, when detecting an abnormality in any of a plurality of first rotors included in the plurality of rotors during flight, is configured or programmed to stop all of the plurality of first rotors. However, Wang does teach that the controller, when detecting an abnormality in any of a plurality of first rotors included in the plurality of rotors during flight, is configured or programmed to stop all of the plurality of first rotors (Paragraphs 70, 72, and 75, this teaches that the system can detect an operating issue in the propulsion and stop the rotation of all of the rotors). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller stop all of the rotors after detecting an issue with the rotor systems because Haskin and Wang are both UAV with a plurality of rotors. The motivation for having the controller stop all of the rotors after detecting an issue with the rotor systems is that it helps to ensure that the rotors do not get tangled up with or damage the lines of the parachute that is deployed when there is an issue in the system.
Regarding claim 18, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, Stanley, and Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 15, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control an attitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle by controlling rotation of the plurality of first rotors during flight (Column 8, lines 22-36 of Haskin, for the propellers to provide the thrust necessary for flight the propeller must inherently control the attitude of the aircraft).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin et al. (US #9,650,136) as modified by Rinaldi et al. (PGPub #2017/0267347), and Stanley (US #2,712,913) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atamanov (PGPub #2019/0291883).
Regarding claim 17, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, and Stanley teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, but does not teach that the controller, when detecting an abnormality in any of a plurality of first rotors included in the plurality of rotors during flight, is configured or programmed to stop both the first rotor where the abnormality was detected and the first rotor positioned on a diagonal line of the first rotor where the abnormality was detected. However, Atamanov does teach that the controller, when detecting an abnormality in any of a plurality of first rotors included in the plurality of rotors during flight, is configured or programmed to stop both the first rotor where the abnormality was detected and the first rotor positioned on a diagonal line of the first rotor where the abnormality was detected (Paragraphs 56, and 57). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control stop a rotor that is diagonal to a failed rotor because Haskin and Atamanov are both aircraft with a plurality of rotors. The motivation for having the control stop a rotor that is diagonal to a failed rotor is that it helps to keep the forces from the rotors balanced and maintain stability of the aircraft.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin et al. (US #9,650,136) as modified by Rinaldi et al. (PGPub #2017/0267347), Stanley (US #2,712,913), and Wang et al. (PGPub #2024/0152162) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Armer et al. (US #11,485,488).
Regarding claim 19, Haskin as modified by Rinaldi, Stanley, and Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 15, further comprising: a first rotation driver to drive the plurality of first rotors (Column 8, lines 22-36 of Haskin); and wherein the first rotation driver includes a plurality of electric motors that respectively drive the plurality of first rotors (Column 8, lines 22-36 of Haskin); but Haskin does not teach a second rotation driver to drive at least one second rotor included in the plurality of rotors; and the second rotation driver includes an internal combustion engine.
However, Armer does teach a second rotation driver (121) to drive at least one second rotor included in the plurality of rotors (85, and 121 as seen in figure 1, and Column 10, lines 30-48); and the second rotation driver includes an internal combustion engine (Column 10, lines 30-48). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second rotor driven by an internal combustion engine because Haskin and Armer are both UAVs with a plurality of vertical electrical rotors. The motivation for having a second rotor driven by an internal combustion engine is that it creates two discrete rotors systems that can allow the system to continue to operate even in the event that one of the rotor systems fails.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 are allowed.
Claims 5-8, 10, 12, 13, and 16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647