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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should read -plurality of electric motors-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 3 recites, “a plurality of electric”. As noted above, it appears it should include motors, but nonetheless, this missing limitation renders the claimed scope indefinite.
Claim 6, lines 1-2 recite “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to obtain a payload value” It is unclear how the controller will obtain a payload value. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, lines 1-2 recite “and correct the maximum height based on the payload value”. It is unclear in what way “correct the maximum height” referrers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 line 2, recites limitation “battery has a size that allows”. It is unclear what is required in a size that allows. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “about”. The disclosure does not provide the degree for about leaving the following measurement indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites limitation “possible” in lines 3, 6, 8 and 9. The phrase “possible” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).]
Claim 14 recites limitation, “and based on the distance; determine a flight landing time” in lines 5-6. It is unclear how the distance determines flight landing time given there is other flight characteristics required for the determination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220306307 A1 Tsutsumi; Daiko et al.
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsumi teaches, an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising a plurality of rotors, the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising: a plurality of electric (element 68) each to drive (para 0035) a respective one of a plurality of first rotors included in the plurality of rotors (element 20); an internal combustion engine (element 72); an electric generator (element 76) to be driven by the internal combustion engine to generate electric power (para 0089); a battery to store the electric power (element 78); and a controller (element 68) configured or programmed to control flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle and to change an upper limit of a flight altitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle according to a charging state of the battery (para 0050).
Regarding claim 2, Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the controller configured or programmed to determine a maximum height to which the unmanned aerial vehicle can descend to the ground and land using the power stored in the battery when power is not being generated by the electric generator, and to control the upper limit of the flight altitude to be at or below the maximum height (figs. 7A-7D).
Regarding claim 3, Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 2, further comprising a battery management system configured or programmed to monitor the battery and to estimate a state of charge that defines the charging state (para 0043 controller 64).
Regarding claim 4, Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 3, wherein the battery management system is configured or programmed to charge the battery with the power generated by the electric generator and maintain the state of charge within a predetermined range (para 0005 and 0007).
Regarding claim 5, Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 3, wherein the battery management system is configured or programmed to measure a temperature of the battery (para 0066); and the controller is configured or programmed to determine the maximum height based on the estimated value of the state of charge of the battery and the measured value of the temperature (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein a full charge capacity of the battery has a size that allows the unmanned aerial vehicle to descend from a predetermined reference height to the ground and land using the power stored in the battery when power is not being generated by the electric generator (figs 7A-7D, t6-t8).
Regarding claim 13, Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire information related to weather conditions including wind speed and correct a maximum height based on the information (para 0042 wind).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20200164975 A1 Robertson; Daniel et al.
Regarding claim 7, Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the plurality of rotors includes at least one second rotor driven by the internal combustion engine.
However Robertson teaches, wherein the plurality of rotors includes at least one second rotor driven by the internal combustion engine (element 14, para 0016).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Tsutsumi with the combustion engine taught by Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is to provide an alternative power source for lift to increase safety and reliability of the aircraft operation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20160304214 A1 Himmelmann; Richard A. et al.
Regarding claim 11 Tsutsumi teaches, T=the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the controller, when the internal combustion engine stops during flight, is configured or programmed to descend and land the unmanned aerial vehicle while driving the plurality of first rotors using the power stored in the battery.
However Himmelmann teaches, wherein the controller, when the internal combustion engine stops during flight, is configured or programmed to descend and land the unmanned aerial vehicle while driving the plurality of first rotors using the power stored in the battery (para 0024 “Emergency power source 108 provides electrical power to hybrid electric propulsion system 100 in the event of failure or shut-down of gas turbine engine 106” and para 0023 emergency power source equals battery 120).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Tsutsumi with the combustion engine taught by Himmelmann with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is to have an emergency option for the propulsion system.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20220011782 A1 Mikic; Gregor Veble et al.
Regarding claim 12, Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, but fails to teach, further comprising a sensor to monitor a condition of the ground located below the unmanned aerial vehicle during flight, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to correct a maximum height based on the ground condition.
However Mikic teaches, further comprising a sensor to monitor a condition of the ground located below the unmanned aerial vehicle during flight (para 0055 altimeter, sensors and gps), wherein the controller is configured or programmed to correct a maximum height based on the ground condition (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Tsutsumi with the combustion sensor taught by Mikic with a reasonable expectation of success. The reason to combine is to provide flight data to adjust the aircraft flight based on the terrain.
Regarding claim 14 Tsutsumi teaches, the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: obtain position information of one or more possible landing points; determine a distance from a current position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a nearest possible landing point, and based on the distance; determine a flight landing time required for flight and landing to the nearest possible landing point; calculate a possible flight time of the unmanned aerial vehicle; and start an operation for flight and landing to the nearest possible landing point when a predetermined relationship is satisfied between the possible flight time and the flight landing time.
However Mikic teaches, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: obtain position information of one or more possible landing points; determine a distance from a current position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a nearest possible landing point, and based on the distance; determine a flight landing time required for flight and landing to the nearest possible landing point; calculate a possible flight time of the unmanned aerial vehicle; and start an operation for flight and landing to the nearest possible landing point when a predetermined relationship is satisfied between the possible flight time and the flight landing time (figure 1 and para 0055 gps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Tsutsumi with the combustion sensor taught by Mikic with a reasonable expectation of success. The reason to combine is to provide flight data to adjust the aircraft flight based on the terrain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights