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 .
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koji JP 2018062324 A (herein, Koji and see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7-8, Koji discloses, an unmanned aerial vehicle (FIG. 1 and #2 – unmanned aerial vehicle) comprising:
a plurality of rotors (FIG. 1 and 2b – rotors);
a plurality of electric motors each configured to drive a respective one of the plurality of rotors (FIG. 1 and ¶[0021] – “…a motor of a rotary wing and rotating the rotary wing…”);
a power source (FIG. 1 and 2a – battery);
a coupler (FIG. 1 and 4 – electric cable) configured to couple an implement that performs ground operations (FIG. 1, #3 unmanned aerial vehicle, and ¶[0023] – “…unmanned aerial vehicle 3 used to exterminate insects such as wasps that are highly aggressive and difficult for people to approach and eradicate…”); and
a controller (FIG. 2 and #2e – controller) configured or programmed to control supply of first electric power from the power source to the plurality of electric motors and supply of second electric power from the power source to the implement, and control operation of the plurality of electric motors (FIG. 1 and ¶[0027] – “…the controller 2e communicates a control signal 11 of a flight position, height, speed, etc., through a repeater 3e connected to the controller 3g of the unmanned airplane 3 for work and a signal cable 4b,…”); wherein upon detecting an abnormality in equipment included in the unmanned aerial vehicle, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the supply of the second electric power to the implement and maintain the supply of the first electric power to the plurality of electric motors to execute flight using the plurality of rotors (FIG. 1 and ¶[0028] – “…turning off the switch of the power supply switching device 3a when the remaining amount of the battery 2a of a certain power-supplying unmanned aerial vehicle 2 falls below a predetermined amount to stop the power supply 7…”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Koji further discloses, further comprising at least one sensor to output sensor data to detect the abnormality in the equipment, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to detect the abnormality in the equipment based on the sensor data (FIG. 2, #3d – sensor, and ¶[0026] – “…to include various types of sensor 3d for detecting an obstacle or the like, exchange the control signal 11 between the sensor 3d and the controller 3e, and control the flight and the work of the working unmanned aerial vehicle 3 according to the surroundings such as the obstacle by the controller 3e.”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji JP 2018062324 A (herein, Koji and see attached machine translation) in view of Yoshioka, JP 2022034865 A (herein, Yosh and see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Koji further teaches, wherein upon detecting the abnormality while executing flight by controlling the plurality of electric motors while supplying the second electric power to the implement (FIGS. 1-2 and ¶[0028] – “…when the remaining amount of the battery 2a of a certain power-supplying unmanned aerial vehicle 2 falls below a predetermined amount to stop the power supply 7 from the power-supplying unmanned aerial vehicle 2.”), but does not disclose, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the supply of the second electric power to the implement and maintain the supply of the first electric power to the plurality of electric motors to
continue flight using the plurality of rotors, and then land the unmanned aerial vehicle by decreasing the rotation speed of the plurality of rotors.
However, Yosh teaches, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the supply of the second electric power to the implement and maintain the supply of the first electric power to the plurality of electric motors (FIG. 1 and #22 – motors) to continue flight using the plurality of rotors (FIGS. 1 and rotors – 21), and then land the unmanned aerial vehicle by decreasing the rotation speed of the plurality of rotors (FIGS. 1-7 and ¶[0062-0065] – “…causes the multicopter 1 to land by performing descent control for causing the multicopter 1 to descend using the electric power remaining in the battery 31 (step S15)…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the unmanned aerial vehicle as disclosed by Koji to include the aforementioned limitations and corresponding functions as taught by Yosh. Do so, improves the capability of the unmanned aerial vehicle by providing the same with the ability to land by reducing the rotation speed of the rotors.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji JP 2018062324 A (herein, Koji and see attached machine translation) in view of Yoshioka, JP 2022034865 A (herein, Yosh and see attached machine translation), and in further view of Kenta et al., JP 2015137092 A (herein, Kenta and see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Koji further teaches, wherein the plurality of
rotors are a plurality of first rotors (FIG. 1 illustrates plurality of first rotors in 2); but does not disclose,
the unmanned aerial vehicle further comprises:
at least one second rotor;
an internal combustion engine to drive the at least one second rotor;
an electric generator that is driven by the internal combustion engine to generate third electric power; and
a battery to store the third electric power, wherein the power source includes the electric generator and the battery; and
the controller is configured or programmed to monitor a state of at least one of the internal combustion engine, the electric generator, the second rotor, a power transmission system to the second rotor, and a fuel supply system to the internal combustion engine, and upon detecting an abnormality in the at least one state, stop the supply of the second electric power to the implement and maintain the supply of the first electric power to the plurality of electric motors to execute flight using the plurality of first rotors while stopping the at least one second rotor.
However, Kenta teaches,
the unmanned aerial vehicle further comprises:
at least one second rotor (FIG. 1 and #3 – propeller);
an internal combustion engine to drive the at least one second rotor (FIG. 1 and #2 - motor);
an electric generator that is driven by the internal combustion engine to generate third electric power (FIG. 1 and # 4 – generator); and
a battery to store the third electric power, wherein the power source includes the electric generator and the battery (FIG. 1 and # 9 – battery); and
the controller (Koji) is configured or programmed to monitor a state of at least one of the internal combustion engine, the electric generator, the second rotor, a power transmission system to the second rotor, and a fuel supply system (FIG. 1 and #10 – fuel) to the internal combustion engine (¶[0008] – “…fuel supplied to the motor;…”), and upon detecting an abnormality in the at least one state, stop the supply of the second electric power to the implement and maintain the supply of the first electric power to the plurality of electric motors to execute flight using the plurality of first rotors while stopping the at least one second rotor (FIG. 6 and ¶[0019] – “FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an operation state of each device in an emergency in which the motor 2 is unintentionally stopped in the aircraft 1. The battery 9 is discharged by the output of the 6kW, and the propulsion units 5, 6, 7, 8 consume the 6kW to generate a thrust of 100 N in total to float the airframe, and at the same time, the thrusts of the four propulsion units are individually adjusted to control the attitude of the airframe. At this time, since the electric motors of the propulsion units 5, 6, 7, and 8 operate at an output exceeding the rated output, the emergency landing is quickly performed while avoiding a long-time continuous operation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the unmanned aerial vehicle as disclosed by Koji to include the aforementioned limitations and corresponding functions as taught by Kenta. Do so, improves the capability of the unmanned aerial vehicle by providing the same with an engine, second rotor, third electric power, and battery that provide the operator with redundant operating systems so that in case of an abnormality, the unmanned aerial vehicle can be landed safely and thus prevent damage to the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights