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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 9/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2026 regarding rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (for the independent claims) “Tao does not teach, suggest, or disclose disabling the obstacle avoidance function based on (1) the tilt angle of the body, (2) the unmanned aerial vehicle being in a takeoff or landing operation, and/or (3) the altitude of the body”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tao [0043] prevents false triggering of the collision avoidance maneuver when in a landing state. Preventing the triggering of any programmed maneuver, in binary, would be assigning a “0” state to the maneuver algorithm trigger. Disabling an obstacle avoidance function would similarly require assigning a binary “0” to the function. Thus Tao teaches disabling (preventing triggering) of the obstacle avoidance function (maneuver).
Applicant argues that (for claim 8) “Tao does not teach, suggest, or disclose setting a threshold for detecting an obstacle based on both the tilt angle and the altitude, and then comparing the distance indicated by the signal from the obstacle sensor with the resulting threshold”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tao [0041] monitors the distance between the UAV and a target. Tao [0155] determines if the height information is under a threshold, while [0137] determines if the target is oriented close to the tilt angle at an allowable error (threshold) of at least 5 degrees [0140]. In short, Tao teaches making sure the target is close enough and at a similar enough tilt angle.
Examiner thanks Applicant for pointing out the publication date of the Tao reference. The rejection has been corrected to reflect the claimed foreign priority date of the Chinese application that the Tao reference is based on (now 35 USC 102(a)(2)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/14/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20240004060A1 (“Tao”).
As per claims 1, 11, and 12 Tao teaches the limitations of the vehicle, system, and method:
An unmanned aerial vehicle comprising: a body; an obstacle sensor attached to the body; and a controller configured or programmed to: perform an obstacle avoidance function to detect an obstacle based on a signal output from the obstacle sensor and to perform an operation to avoid collision with the obstacle; disable the obstacle avoidance function when a predetermined condition is satisfied; and enable the obstacle avoidance function when the predetermined condition is not satisfied; wherein the predetermined condition includes at least one of: a first condition that a tilt angle of the body is greater than a predetermined angle; a second condition that the unmanned aerial vehicle is in a takeoff operation or a landing operation; or a third condition that an altitude of the body is at or below a predetermined height. (Tao at least the abstract, [0041-0043], , [0137-0140], [0155-0157], [0158])
Claim 8:
wherein the obstacle sensor is configured to output the signal indicating a distance to an object within a measurement range; and the controller is configured or programmed to: determine that the obstacle has been detected if the distance indicated by the signal is less than a threshold value; and set the threshold value based on the tilt angle and the altitude. (Tao at least the abstract, [0043], FIG. 6, [0117-0149])
Claim 10:
a distance sensor configured to measure, as the altitude, a distance to an object existing below the body. (Tao at least the abstract, [0043], FIG. 6)
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao.
As per claim 9, Tao teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Tao teaches the limitations below, substituting calculating the angle sine value as claimed with the cosine value:
when the tilt angle is 0 and the altitude is h, the controller is configured or programmed to vary the threshold value according to the value of h/sin 0. (Tao at least [0149])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute calculating a sine value with a cosine value to triangulate angle and height or distance with a reasonable expectation of results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao in view of US20200278679A1 (“Kunzi”).
As per claim 3, Tao teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Tao does not disclose, which Kunzi teaches:
wherein the predetermined condition includes the second condition and the third condition, and does not include the first condition. (Kunzi at least [0091]: “prevent the e-bumper controller from erroneously signaling a collision upon detecting the ground during launch or landing…dynamic collision-avoidance system … automatically armed/disarmed depending on the distance, position, altitude, flight time, etc. of the vehicle… a disabled mode…Precision mode may also be designed to allow the UAV to approach to obstacles closer than in performance mode (e.g., about 1 to 10 feet, more preferably about 3-7 feet, or about 4.5 ft.)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tao with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kunzi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow the UAV to approach obstacles closer (Kunzi [0091]).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao in view of US20200135037A1 (“Flotte”).
As per claim 5, Tao teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Tao does not disclose, which Flotte teaches:
the obstacle sensor is positioned to detect an object located horizontally away from the body when the body is not tilted. (Flotte at least [0108])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tao with the aforementioned limitations taught by Flotte with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the safety of aircraft (Flotte [0235]).
As per claim 6, Tao teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Tao does not disclose, which Flotte teaches:
the obstacle sensor includes a laser sensor fixed to the body so as to emit a light beam toward the object located horizontally away from the body when the body is not tilted. (Flotte at least [0108], [0099])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tao with the aforementioned limitations taught by Flotte with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 5.
As per claim 7, Tao teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Tao does not disclose, which Flotte teaches:
the obstacle sensor includes an imager fixed to the body so as to capture an image of the object located horizontally away from the body when the body is not tilted. (Flotte at least [0108], [0099])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tao with the aforementioned limitations taught by Flotte with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art is silent on:
the predetermined condition includes the first condition and the second condition, and does not include the third condition.
the predetermined condition includes all of the first, second, and third conditions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
