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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato (Pub. No.: US 2022/0006418 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (100, FIG. 2) comprising a plurality of rotors (propellers/blades 7, FIG. 2), the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising:
a plurality of electric motors each configured to rotate a respective one of the plurality of rotors (motors 11-16 driving their associated propellers 7 ¶¶ 26-27 and FIG. 2);
a plurality of motor drive circuits each configured to drive a respective one of the plurality of electric motors (Plural motor control devices 21-26 control their associated motors 11-16 respectively ¶ 26); and
a controller configured or programmed to control operation of the plurality of motor drive circuits (Controllers 31 and 32 controlling motor control devices 21-26, FIG. 1);
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to change the operation of the plurality of motor drive circuits from a flight state (S201-S203, FIG. 6, suggests a pre-flight state where all systems of the UAV are verified for safe travel) of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a state where flight is not possible in response to a stop signal (In response to abnormality of motor control devices as shown in S204, S205, S208; a stop command for the motor is executed in S209; FIG. 6 and ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 13, Sato discloses a termination system (S209, FIG. 6) for terminating operation of a plurality of motor drive circuits (motor control device 21-26, FIG. 1) and usable in an unmanned aerial vehicle including a plurality of rotors (propellers/blades 7, FIG. 2), a plurality of electric motors each configured to rotate a respective one of the plurality of rotors (Motors 11-16, FIG. 1, to drive associated propellers, FIG 2), the plurality of motor drive circuits each configured to drive a respective one of the plurality of electric motors (Motor control device 21-26 to drive Motors 11-16, FIG. 1), and a controller configured or programmed to control operation of each of the plurality of motor drive circuits (Controllers 31 and 32 controlling motor control devices 21-26, FIG. 1), the termination system being configured or programmed to output a stop signal to the controller to change the operation of the plurality of motor drive circuits from a flight state (S201-S203, FIG. 6, suggests a pre-flight state where all systems of the UAV are verified for safe travel) of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a state where flight is not possible (In response to abnormality of motor control devices as shown in S204, S205, S208; a stop command for the motor is executed in S209; FIG. 6 and ¶ 68).
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 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (Pub. No.: US 2022/0006418 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ouellette et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0373622 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sato is silent to the termination system, further comprising an operation terminal to output the stop signal to the controller when the unmanned aerial vehicle is positioned above a field. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ouellette teaches:
“a method for detection of air flow disruption includes monitoring air flow generated by an air propulsion system to detect one or more air flow anomalies indicating potentially blocked air flow. In response to detecting the one or more air flow anomalies, the airflow generated by the air propulsion system may be automatically reversed or temporarily stopped. A determination may be made whether the one or more detected air flow anomalies are resolved by the reversed or stopped air flow. The airflow generated by the air propulsion system prior to the detection of the one or more air flow anomalies may be resumed, in response to determining that the one or more air flow anomalies are resolved.” (See Abstract).
Based on the anomalies detected while in flight, the drone may be forced to land where the one or motors may be stopped (¶ 23) in order to determine a resolution (704, 706, 708; FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stop signal outputted by the controller taught by Sato to further comprise an operation terminal to output the stop signal to the controller when the unmanned aerial vehicle is positioned above a field as taught by Ouellette. This would improve UAV operation by mitigating unnecessary crashes that would further cause hazardous damage to the environment, e.g., nearby infrastructures and/or people (¶¶ 3-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 12, 15 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 TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights